Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

INCITEMENT TO DISAFFECTION BILL.

Miss RATHBONE: I desire to present to this House a petition praying that the Incitement to Disaffection Bill shall not pass into law, on the ground that it is a grave menace to the fundamental liberties of the British people. The petition is organised by the National Council for Civil Liberties and has received the signatures of 63,134 citizens resident all over the United Kingdom.

ALIENS (NATURALISATION).

Address for "Return showing (1) Particulars of all Aliens to whom certificates of naturalisation have been issued and whose oaths of allegiance have, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1933, been registered at the Home Office; (2) Information as to Aliens who have, during the same period, obtained Acts of Naturalisation from the legislature; and (3) Particulars of cases in which certificates of naturalisation have been revoked during the same period (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 170, of Session 1932–33)"—[Captain Crookshank.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BOLIVIA AND PARAGUAY (ARMS EMBARGO).

Mr. MANDER: 1.
asked the secretary of state for Foreign Affairs the present position with regard to the agreement for a general embargo on the export of arms to Bolivia and Paraguay and with regard to the dispute generally?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): It is now possible to say that the international agreement to prevent the supply
of arms to Bolivia and Paraguay, which was initiated and pressed by His Majesty's Government, has at last been put into operation. All the arms manufacturing countries approached by the League Committee, who had previously announced their acceptance in principle of the proposed embargo, have stated that they took the necessary measures before the end of September, without any reservations as regards the execution of current contracts. As regards the dispute itself, I regret that all attempts to bring about a peaceful settlement have so far failed. At the request of the Bolivian Government, the dispute has been referred to the Assembly of the League of Nations, under the terms of Article 15 of the Covenant, and on the 27th September the Assembly appointed a Committee to prepare the report contemplated under the terms of paragraph 4 of that Article, which it is proposed should be submitted to the Assembly at a special session of the latter on the 20th November. In the meantime efforts to obtain a settlement by conciliation are being continued under the auspices of this Committee.

Mr. MANDER: Am I to understand from that very satisfactory statement that no arms are now reaching either of the two combatants?

Sir J. SIMON: I would gladly supplement the information if I could, but I think that, if my hon. Friend will study the answer that I have given, he will get all the information he desires.

Mr. MABANE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any substantial manufacture of arms within the limits of these two countries?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir, there is not.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Are these two countries members of the League, and will they continue to attend the Assembly and sit with other countries?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes. Bolivia and Paraguay are members of the League.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the whole credit of this is really due to the British Government?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that, although these countries are members of the League, neither of
them has contributed towards the cost of the League throughout the whole of its existence?

Sir J. SIMON: That is another question. I should not like to make any statement without examining the accounts.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMAMENTS (GOVERNMENT PLANS).

Mr. MANDER: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to state the present position with regard to the world re-armament race; and what additions have been made during the last six months to their combatant forces by the principal nations?

Sir J. SIMON: I am sure that the hon. Member realises that the subject matter of world armaments cannot be dealt with in the compass of a Parliamentary question and answer. There are no figures available which would enable me to answer the second part of the question.

Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me of anything which will enable me to spot the winner of this race?

Mr. MANDER: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the present position of the Government's re-armament plans and the progress that has been made with these in respect of the air?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The Lord President of the Council, in the Debate on 30th July, 1934, informed Members that there would be many opportunities for discussing the Government's plans when the Estimates were put forward. At the present time, I am afraid that I can add nothing to the Lord President's statement beyond assuring the hon. Member that the progress in respect of the Air Force is being made in accordance with the Government's plans which have already been announced.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the fact that armaments throughout the world are going up and up and up, what steps are the Government taking to render this unnecessary?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am very glad to find that the hon. Member is in favour of an increase of armaments of a defensive kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL CONFERENCE.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the forthcoming naval conference; where this will take place; what nations will participate; and what will be the agenda?

Sir J. SIMON: I regret that I can make no statement at present.

Captain MACDONALD: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to make a statement soon?

Sir J. SIMON: I should not like to prophesy about it. I can snake no statement at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICA (FAUNA AND FLORA).

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make an announcement with regard to the ratification by this country of the convention concluded at the international conference in November of last year for the protection of the fauna and flora of Africa; and whether the Governments of any other countries have yet ratified this convention?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom intend to take early steps with a view to the ratification of the convention, and would propose subsequently to ascertain the intentions of the other participating Governments, none of whom has yet ratified.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR SERVICES (CANADA AND FAR EAST).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is yet in a position to make any statement with regard to the possibility of an extension of the British air routes to Canada or the Far East, including China?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): There is at present no concrete scheme before the Air Ministry for a British trans-Atlantic air service. Various proposals for a connecting link between the Australian air mail service, which will, it is
hoped, be in operation before the end of this year, and the Far East have been under consideration for some time past, but the somewhat complex negotiations with the different Governments concerned have unfortunately been subject to unforeseen delays.

Captain MACDONALD: Will the Under-Secretary assure the House that the machines used on this service will be faster than those on existing services?

Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think that arises out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING-PLACES.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 10.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in the light of experience during the last three months, he proposes to continue and extend the system of marked crossing-places for pedestrians?

Mr. PARKINSON: 13.
asked the Minister of Transport if the experimental uncontrolled pedestrian crossings have proved a success; and whether the scheme is to be adopted throughout the country?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I would refer the two hon. Members to the answer which I gave yesterday to a question on this subject.

Mr. MABANE: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to make it compulsory for pedestrains to use these crossing-places and not to cross at places where there are no marks?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I can only answer that question when the time arrives.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. PARKINSON: 14.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of persons killed and injured in road accidents for the first nine months of the year, giving separate figures for the various classes of motor and horse-drawn vehicles, and comparable figures for the previous year?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The number of persons reported as having died as a result of road accidents which occurred daring the first nine months of 1933 was 5,243. As the weekly returns date only from the middle of March last, it is not possible to give exact figures for the first
nine months of this year. Taking the period as a whole, the number of fatal accidents appears to have been approximately the same as last year, but comparison for the last two months of the period shows an improvement. Statistics of persons injured in road accidents during 1933 are available only for the year as a whole, but it is estimated that during the first nine months of that year the number was approximately 164,100. For the corresponding period of this year the number of persons injured was approximately 176,200. The rate of increase over last year has been falling steadily during the last two months. The hon. Member will find particulars of the numbers of different classes of vehicles involved in road accidents in 1933 in the Home Office returns for that year. Similar particulars for this year will not be available until the annual returns have been received and tabulated.

Mr. LUNN: May I ask why the hon. Gentleman does not take more drastic powers for dealing with all those people who drive to the danger of the public?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The House did confer certain powers on me, and I have tried to use them to the full.

Mr. THORNE: Has the hon. Gentleman any separate figures of the number of accidents that take place where a vehicle is passing from a main road into a by-road and vice versa?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir, not for the country as a whole.

Mr. PIKE: Am I to understand that the schemes laid down for the passage of transport and foot passengers must be submitted to the hon. Gentleman before they are allowed to be proceeded with by the local authorities?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not quite understand the purport of the question. Parliament has conferred certain powers upon the Minister of Transport, and those powers are used. Other powers are in the hands of the local authorities.

Mr. McENTEE: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of persons killed and injured by motor-drawn vehicles in the Metropolitan Police District during the first six months of the year, giving separate figures for children?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): As the answer is in the form of a tabular statement, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Numbers of persons killed and injured by mechanically propelled vehicles in road accidents recorded by the Metropolitan Police in the six months ended 30th June, 1934.


Age Groups.
Number of persons Killed.
Number of persons injured.
Total number of persons killed and injured.


Under5
21
599
620


5 and under 15
90
3,372
3,462


15 and over
474
16,901
17,375


Total
585
20,872
21,457

WATERLOO BRIDGE (OMNIBUS SERVICE).

Mr. BROCKLEBANK (for Mr. GOLDIE): 11.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the inclement weather likely to prevail during the winter months, it is proposed to provide an omnibus service proceeding from south to north over the temporary Waterloo Bridge between the hours of 8 and 10 a.m. daily for the convenience of those persons whose avocations render it necessary for them to travel to the West Central District and who, in the absence of such service, will be compelled to cross such bridge on foot?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. and learned Friend that the London Passenger Transport Board have to-day commenced an omnibus service from south to north over the temporary Waterloo Bridge and that between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. the service will be operated at intervals of 3½minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions — WESSEX ELECTRICITY COMPANY.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 12.
Asked the Minister of Transport whether the Electricity Commissioners have now reached any understanding with the Air Ministry on the subject of the proposal of the Wessex Electricity Company to carry its line a quarter of a mile to the north of. the existing Bicester aerodrome, and to which the Air Ministry, despite local feeling, continues to object?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Wessex Electricity Company submitted an amended route for the proposed line to which no objection was taken by the Air Ministry, and on the 26th September I gave my consent to the erection of the line.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS.

Mr. HICKS: 15.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether it is proposed to proceed with the building of new Government offices in Whitehall?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The Government are not yet in a position to reach a decision whether or not to proceed with the building of new Government offices in Whitehall as the sketch plans are not completed, and some time must necessarily elapse before the various consultations which I undertook to institute can be effected.

Mr. HICKS: Will the First Commissioner agree to make the sketch plans available in the Library?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Not until they have been approved, if and when they are approved. I am afraid I have got very considerable further negotiations both as to the site to be occupied and the character of the buildings before that day can arrive.

Mr. HICKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea whether it it likely to arrive, say, in three months?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is very difficult to say. I have had recent communications with the London County Council, the Fine Arts Commission and the architects. These matters are not easy.

Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: 16.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is in a position to make any statement regarding the proposed new Government buildings in Edinburgh?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Government have decided in principle to proceed with the scheme for the proposed new Government buildings in Edinburgh. The design prepared by Mr. Thomas S. Tait, the architect appointed for the purpose, has been approved by the Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland and is about to
be submitted to the Edinburgh Corporation for approval, in accordance with the terms of transfer of the site to the Government. I hope to be in a position shortly to instruct Mr. Tait to proceed with the necessary preliminaries so as to enable building operations to be commenced within the course of next financial year.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUSSIA.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether facts before him are sufficient to show that the Anglo-Russian Trade Agreement is being faithfully carried out on both sides?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): From the information available I see no reason to doubt that the ratio of payments called for in the agreement will be realised.

Mr. LOFTUS: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that Russia to-day is selling to this country more than ten times the value of fish which she is buying from this country, and will he not make representations to redress this disproportion?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The aspect of the trade of which the hon. Member is thinking is the canned salmon trade, which is not entirely a Russian interest.

TRADE POSITION.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make with regard to the condition of trade and employment?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): It would not be practicable to deal adequately with this subject within the limits of a reply to a question. I would refer my hon. Friend to the Trade and Navigation Accounts for September, the Board of Trade Journal of 18th and 25th October, and the Ministry of Labour Gazette of October for the latest available figures of increased trade and employment.

Sir J. NALL: Arising out of the figures disclosed in these documents, what steps are the Government taking to reduce the
present high level of imports of manufactured goods?

Dr. BURGIN: Every category of manufactured goods is examined very carefully. By far the greater proportion are processed again after arrival here and provide employment in this country.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Does that apply to motor cars?

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (CEYLON).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS (for Mr. HANNON): 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of United Kingdom manufactured goods imported during the last 12 months into Ceylon upon which preference is granted; and the total import of manufactured goods into Ceylon during the last 12 months upon which preference is not granted?

Dr. BURGIN: So far as can be ascertained from the trade returns of Ceylon, it appears that, during the 12 months ended August, 1934, imports of manufactured goods of United Kingdom origin subject to preferential rates of duty were valued at about 16 million rupees, while imports from all sources of manufactured goods upon which preference was not granted, including goods free of duty, were valued at about 56 million rupees.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

EDUCATION CORPS (OFFICERS' PROMOTION).

Mr. LEWIS: 21.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what steps are being taken to remedy the block in the promotion of officers in the Army Education Corps?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): A committee, under the chairmanship of my noble friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, is at present examining the promotion situation in the Royal Artillery, Royal Corps of Signals, Royal Army Service Corps and Army Educational Corps. It is not possible to say what steps, if any, will be taken in respect of the Army Educational Corps until the recommendations of the Committee have been received.

Mr. LEWIS: Can the Under-Secretary say approximately when the recommendations are likely to be received?

Mr. HACKING: Not at this stage. It will be a little time yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEEF SUPPLIES.

Mr. G. HALL (for Mr. DAVID GRENFELL): 20.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the subsidy given to the livestock industry, it is now proposed to feed the home forces on British beef?

Mr. HACKING: Practically the whole of the frozen beef supplied to the Army and Air Force at home is of Dominion origin. If the hon. Member is referring to home-killed beef, I regret that its cost is still prohibitive as far as Army funds are concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — MATERNAL AND CHILD WELFARE SERVICES.

Mr. LUNN: 24.
asked the Minister of Health what steps the Government are taking for the development of maternal and child welfare services?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I will send the hon. Member a copy of the circular on this subject addressed to local authorities on the 10th of this month in which attention is drawn to the importance of improving and developing the maternity services and to the measures which should be taken in order to provide a satisfactory service in each area.

Mr. PIKE: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the recommendation compels local authorities with over 30,000 population to erect child welfare centres, or whether it still compels these persons to travel some miles before children can be attended to?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

Miss RATHBONE: 25.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has included in the periodical return of new houses for which he is asking particulars of whether the houses are intended for sale or letting and, if the latter, at what rentals?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The half-yearly returns now obtained as to new dwelling houses provided without State assistance show the number of houses entered on the rate book during the half-year with a
rateable value not exceeding £26—£35 in Greater London—which are occupied by persons other than the owners. This information is available in the records of the authority as a rating authority. The returns do not show the rents charged for new houses built by private enterprise, where let, as local authorities do not ordinarily have this information in their possession.

Miss RATHBONE: As merely from the rate charges it is impossible for the public to judge of the rental of a house and the number of different rentals, will the Parliamentary Secretary make an effort to supply the information? Does he not recognise that in default of such information it is impossible for the public to judge whether private enterprise and the Ministry, together or separately, are meeting the need of thousands of citizens who are not technically slum dwellers or overcrowded, but who are grievously under-housed?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We have approached several local authorities and always get the same reply: "These facts are not procurable."

Mr. PIKE: In view of the great number of injustices inflicted by local authorities upon applicants for houses built by the authorities, will the Minister not consider making a new order in respect not only of a definite declaration of the amount of income necessary to pay the rent, but also the rental of houses which local authorities own?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That is an entirely different point. Perhaps the hon. Member will find some satisfaction in the Bill to be introduced next Session.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS (for Mr. MITCHESON): 23.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses that were built during the six months ended 30th September?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The number of houses completed and under construction with State assistance in England and Wales during the six months ended the 30th September, 1934, was 39,755. The returns relating to the provision of houses without State assistance during the six months are not yet complete, and figures will not be available until about the 20th November.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (SIZE OF CLASSES).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 26.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can now publish the statement showing, at the latest available date, the number of classes with over 50 pupils on the roll in public elementary schools in each county, county borough, and urban district in England and Wales?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The statement asked for by the hon. Member is in course of preparation. It is hoped that it will be ready for publication within the next four or five weeks, and I shall then send the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will it be laid as a Parliamentary paper?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: No, I think not.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (LOSS OF STEAM LAUNCH "MANOUNG").

Mr. LEWIS: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will now state the result of his inquiries into the circumstances under which the steam launch "Manoung," on the ferry service between the Risalpur river and Saugor island, sank in a squall recently and, in particular, as to whether there were on board more passengers than this launch was licensed to carry?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): A special marine court was appointed to inquire into the matter, but its findings have not yet been reported.

Mr. LEWIS: Can the hon. Member say when he expects to be in possession of the findings?

Mr. BUTLER: I have no recent news, but I understand that there will be no undue delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 28.
asked the Postmaster-General whether a decision has yet been reached as to the nature of the commission which will be set up to consider future policy with regard to broadcasting in this country
after the expiry of the existing charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and if so, what, will be the approximate date on which such commission will be set up?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Sir Ernest Bennett): No decisions have yet been arrived at in this matter. As my right hon. Friend stated yesterday, the Charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation has still more than two years to run.

Captain MACDONALD: Is the hon. Member going to wait until the expiration of this contract before reconsidering the matter?

Sir E. BENNETT: We do not regard it as a matter of urgency at the moment.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: In view of the numerous matters and considerations which will have to be taken into account, will the hon. Member communicate with our mutual right hon. Friend with a view to a preliminary survey being made as soon as possible so that when this commission starts time may not be lost in accumulating the necessary data.

Sir E. BENNETT: I will let my right hon. Friend know what the hon. Member says.

Mr. LUNN: Will it be a Parliamentary commission or a mixed commission?

Sir E BENNETT: I cannot say at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TWO-SHIFT SYSTEM.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 30.
asked the Home Secretary whether the committee set up to inquire into the working of the two-shift system has made any report; and, if so, when it will be published?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; I understand that the committee still have much important evidence to hear and are not expected to report before the end of the year. I will consider the question of publishing the report when I have received it.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

WAKEFIELD.

Mr. LUNN: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour the reason for the increase of registered unemployed persons at the
Wakefield Employment Exchange from 5,147 in June, 1929, to 9,311 in June, 1934; and whether the Government have any proposals to put forward for providing work which will reduce the number?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The increase which occurred between June, 1929, and June, 1934, in the number of unemployed persons registering at the Wakefield Employment Exchange was mainly due to increased unemployment in the coal mining and woollen and worsted industries. As regards the second part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him yesterday by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. LUNN: Can the hon. Member tell me what there is in that reply which is going to provide work for people who are out of employment?

Mr. PIKE: Can my hon. Friend say what effect the Parliamentary representation has upon employment in the area?

Mr. BOULTON: Can my hon. Friend state how the level of unemployment in June, 1934, compares with that of 1931, when the Labour Government were in office; and, further, what has been the recent course of unemployment in Wakefield?

Mr. HUDSON: The figures for June, 1931, were 9,187. I am glad to say that the figure now is just over 7,000.

Mr. T. SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the Government are doing to deal with the problem of unemployment in the coal-mining industry?

Mr. HUDSON: The figures I have read, showing a drop in the last three months, are themselves evidence of what has been done.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the Labour Government was a minority Government, and that the present Government is a majority Government?

INSURANCE FUND.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS (for Mr. M ITCHESON): 32.
asked the Minister of Labour the present assets and liabilities of the Unemployment Insurance Fund?

Mr. HUDSON: After allowing for the accrued charge for debt services under Section 18 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934, there is a sum of approximately £8,950,000 in hand on the Insurance Account of the Unemployment Fund; the amount of the funded debt outstanding is about £105,740,000.

SCOTLAND.

Mr. LEONARD (for Mr. NEIL MACLEAN): 33 and 34.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he can state, to the last convenient date, the number of persons registered as unemployed in Scotland who are in receipt of transitional benefit;
(2) whether he can state to the last convenient date the number of persons registered as unemployed in Scotland and in receipt of standard benefit?

Mr. HUDSON: At 24th September, 1934, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 103,724 insured persons with claims admitted for insurance benefit and 129,351 with applications authorised for transitional payments, on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (FOREIGN PURCHASES).

Sir G. FOX: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the nature and value of purchases of foreign imports made by his Department in the last 12 months for which complete figures are available?

Sir P. SASSOON: During the year ended 30th September last, Air Ministry purchases of foreign imports, excluding petrol and oil, amounted to £39,000, of which £20,000 was for timber and £19,000 for miscellaneous experimental technical equipment.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES (CLOSER UNION PROPOSALS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS (for Mr. HANNON): 6.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any action is contemplated by His Majesty's Government for closer union through centralised administration in the West Indies?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: A motion for the adoption, as they stand, of the proposals of the Closer Union Com-
mission has been debated in the legislatures of the Windward and Leeward Islands. Having regard to the divergence of opinion expressed, more especially in view of the additional expense involved as indicated in estimates placed before the legislatures, I have reached the conclusion that it is not practicable to proceed with a scheme of closer union at present. The question of adopting certain recommendations made by the Commission in regard to the composition of these legislatures is receiving further consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUSK RATS.

Mr. G. HALL (for Mr. D. GRENFELL): 22.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the work of searching for and trapping musk rats in this country is still being continued; and, if so, the number of trappers engaged, the counties concerned, and the cost to date?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): The work of searching for and trapping musk rats at large still continues in Shropshire, Worcester, Sussex, Surrey and Hampshire. The known centres of infestation are now localised in comparatively small areas in the counties named, and consequently it has been possible to reduce the number of trappers from a, maximum of 39 early in 1933 to 15 men and a supervisor in Shropshire and six men in the other counties. The total cost of this service from April, 1932, to the 30th September, 1934, has been £11,748, while the receipts, principally from the sale of skins, amount to £363.

Oral Answers to Questions — DERELICT AREAS (COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS).

Mr. LEONARD (for Mr. MACLEAN): 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has now arranged to publish the reports and recommendations of the commissioners who were appointed to investigate conditions in the so-called derelict areas?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made yesterday in reply to questions on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (SUBMARINE CONTRACTS, 1926–27).

Mr. G. HALL: (by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he proposes to take any action arising out of the letter submitted to the American Senatorial Committee inquiring into the private manufacture of arms, as having been written by the Managing Director of Messrs. Vickers Armstrong, in which reference was made to a friend in the Admiralty who would get the firm a contract for submarines?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): I read the report to which the hon. Member refers with surprise and indignation, and at once investigated the whole of the circumstances in regard to the placing of the orders for submarines in both the two years in question, 1926 and 1927.
After full examination, I am able to state quite definitely that the allocation in each year was settled, in accordance with the invariable practice, by the First Lord himself on the advice of the two responsible Members of the Board of Admiralty, namely, the Controller and the Parliamentary Secretary, and that there was not a trace of partiality for a particular firm either on their part or on the part of any official in dealing with the question at any stage. Indeed, one of the chief objects of the allocation in each year was to enlarge the number of firms upon which the Admiralty could rely for submarine building and to prevent anything in the nature of a monopoly, and the Board accepted extra cost in order to achieve this object.
I have since been informed by Sir Charles Craven that the letter actually written by him made specific mention of a particular official, namely the Director of Contracts, and that there were other discrepancies between his letter as actually written and as reported. The fact remains, however, that he did use language which could be read as casting a reflection on the impartiality of the Director of Contracts. He assures me that this was not his intention, and that any such reflection would have been totally unwarranted, and he has expressed his great regret for what he wrote.
I would repeat that I have satisfied myself that there was absolutely nothing
in the nature of favouritism on the part of the Director of Contracts or anyone else in the placing of these submarine orders, and I should welcome the fullest independent inquiry into the way in which these orders were placed.

Mr. HALL: In the light of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, is it intended that an inquiry shall be conducted by the Admiralty, seeing that this letter has been written by a person of very great eminence and authority?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I have satisfied myself by a complete inquiry. I now offer to the House an independent inquiry into the placing of these contracts. I do not think I can do more than that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take on Friday?

The PRIME MINISTER: In accordance with the arrangement made across the Floor of the House last night, Friday. I am informed, will be given to the Third Reading of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 58.

Division No. 371.]
AYES.
[3.23 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hope. Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cross, R. H.
Hornby, Frank


Allen, Sir. J. Sandeman (Llverp'l, W.)
Crossley, A. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M (Hackney, N.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dickie, John P.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Apsley Lord
Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Assheton, Ralph
Drewe, Cedric
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Duckworth, George A. V.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dugdale, captain Thomas Lionel
Iveagh, Countess of


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Duggan, Hubert John
James. Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Jamieson. Douglas


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Dungiass, Lord
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Eady, George H.
Knight, Holford


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Eales, John Frederick
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bernays, Robert
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Blrchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Blindell, James
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Leckie, J. A.


Borodale, Viscount
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Bossom, A. C.
Elmley, Viscount
Lees-Jones, John


Boulton, W. W.
Emmott. Charles E. G. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Levy, Thomas


Brass, Captain Sir William
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lewis, Oswald


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Liddall, Walter S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lindsay. Noel Ker


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Ganzoni, Slr John
Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Gibson, Charles Granville
Lockwood. Capt. J. H. (Shipley)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Loftus, Pierce C.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslle
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Burnett, John George
Goff, Sir Park
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mabane, William


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Granville, Edgar
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G (Partick)


Campbell-Johnston. Malcolm
Grattan-Doyle. Sir Nicholas
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Caporn, Arthur Cecll
Grigg, Slr Edward
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Grimston, R. V.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Guest. Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Macdonald. Capt. P. D. (J. of W.)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
McKle, John Hamilton


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hacking. Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hales. Harold K.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Maitland, Adam


Cobb. Sir Cyril
Hartland, George A.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Tornes)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Conant, R. J. E.
Heilgers. Captain F. F. A.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Cook, Thomas A.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cooke, Douglas
Hepworth, Joseph
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)


Craven-Ellis, William
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Moison, A. Hugh Elsdale


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thompson, Sir Luke


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Munro, Patrick
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Nail, Sir Joseph
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Train, John


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Nunn, William
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Seiley, Harry R.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Orr Ewing, I. L.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Ward. Sarah Adeialde (Cannock)


Peake, Osbert
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Pearson, William G.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Peat, Charles U.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Petherick, M.
Somervell, Sir Donald
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Pike, Cecil F.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western isles)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stevenson, James
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Rickards, George William
Stones, James
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Storey, Samuel



Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Strauss, Edward A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ross, Ronald D.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Sutcliffe. Harold



Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n,S.)



NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Paling, Wilfred


Brown. C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Healy, Cahir
Rea, Walter Russell


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Holdsworth, Herbert
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Daggar, George
Janner, Barnett
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jenkins, Sir William
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Stephen Owen
Kirkwood, David
West, F. R.


Debbie, William
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Lawson. John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lunn, William
Wood. Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEntee, Valentine L.



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.

POOR LAW BILL,

"to amend the enactments relating to the relief of the poor in England and Wales so as to secure uniformity throughout Great Britain in the provisions relating to the disregarding of sick pay, maternity benefit, and wounds or disability pensions." presented by Sir Hilton Young; supported by Mr. Shakespeare; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 192.]

INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM.

Ordered, That the Report from the Joint Committee (together with the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee) when made by the Committee be printed.—[Sir Austen, Chamberlain.]

Orders of the Day — INCITEMENT TO DISAFFECTION BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Penalty on persons endeavouring to seduce members of His Majesty's Forces from their duty or allegiance.)

3.32 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out "or" and to insert "and."
The purpose of the Amendment is to bring the words of this Clause into line with Section 1 of the Incitement to Mutiny Act, 1797, where it is made an offence to seduce a member of the Forces from his "duty and allegiance." Here it is "duty or allegiance," and our contention is that the substitution of the word "or" for the word "and" creates an entirely new offence, an offence that has hitherto been unknown to English law, because it is obvious that duty may be something very much less, and more trivial, than allegiance. If I persuaded a soldier to overstay his leave by half-an-hour, I might be guilty of seducing him from his duty, but no one would argue that his allegiance was in any way questioned. The learned Attorney-Genera] pointed out in answer to me in Committee upstairs that the Act of 1797 itself created more than one offence. That is true. There are, as it were, two limbs to Section 1 of the Act of 1797. The first makes it an offence to endeavour to seduce a soldier from his duty and allegiance, and the second limb of the Section proceeds like this:
To incite or to stir up such person or persons to commit any act of mutiny or to make or endeavour to make any mutinous assembly or to commit any traitorous or mutinous practice whatsoever
So it is true that that Act does create more than one offence, but in spite of that I do not think it can be seriously maintained that the offences there referred to, namely, committing any traitorous or mutinous practice, are really synonymous with endeavouring to seduce a soldier from his duty; and I suggest that seducing him from his duty is much wider. The offence of mutiny is quite
different from a mere breach of duty, and I think there are two clear difstinctions. For instance, instance, I can endeavour to seduce a soldier from his duty without involving any other soldier in the offence, but I am rather doubtful whether a man can commit the offence of mutiny by himself. I was looking up the "Manual of Military Law" a day or two ago, and there I found this definition:
The term 'mutiny' implies collective insubordination or a combination of two or more persons to resist or induce others to resist lawful military authority.
There is the first distinction. Secondly, as I submit, mutiny means something in the nature of open definance or open revolt against constituted authority. I have here Chambers' "Twentieth Century Dictionary," and I would like to read the definition given there of mutiny, which is as follows:
To rise against authority in military or naval service; to revolt against rightful authority.
the noun is:
Insurrection against constituted authority; revolt; tumult; strife.
A soldier may very easily be guilty of some dereliction of duty which may fall very far short of open defiance or open revolt against constituted authority, and I think I can pray in aid the terms of the various Army and Navy Discipline Acts which have been passed from time to time in this House. In this Clause there is frequent reference to the offence of mutiny and to various mutinous offences. The various Statutes, however, do not stop at mutiny, but go on to lay down a great number of other offences of which a soldier or a sailor may be guilty, and if mutiny included any breach of duty it would follow that all these further Sections to which I have referred would be surplus and unnecessary.
In the Debate upstairs some reference was made to the Naval Discipline Act of 1866. It was pointed out, again quite rightly, that these words in this Bill, namely, "duty or allegiance," occur in that Act, and it was suggested by, I think, the learned Attorney-General that if we were looking for precedents, we ought to take the more recent 'and modern precedent of the Naval Discipline Act of 1866. My answer to that is that that Act applies only to a very limited class of persons. It applies, in the first place, to those who are normally subject
to naval discipline—that is to say, those who are in His Majesty's service in the Navy—and, secondly, to people who happen for the time being to be on board one of His Majesty's ships or on board a ship hired by the Government in time of war. Those are the two classes of persons covered by that Act, and, after all, they are only a very small minority of the citizens of this country. They are a very limited class, and I submit, therefore, that with regard to the great majority of the people of this country, the substitution in this Bill of the word "or" for the word "and" in, the Act of 1797 creates a new offence.
I apologise for going so much into statutory precedents, but I think that it is important because of the defence that was advanced on the Second Reading by the learned Solicitor-General, who defended the Bill on the ground that it was merely a procedure Bill. How can it be said to be merely a procedure Bill, when here, in the first Clause, before ever we reach some of the more controversial aspects of the Bill, we have an entirely new crime? And what a crime it is. I will take a single example to show how wide might be the scope of the offence. Before the War there was an Army Order which laid down that all officers in the Army should grow or attempt to grow a moustache. If the mother or wife or fiancee of an officer endeavoured to persuade him to shave his upper lip she would be endeavouring to seduce him to commit a breach of duty or to seduce him from his duty. That may be an extreme example, but it shows how far this offence can be taken. If I am guilty of persuading a soldier to overstay his leave for a short time I am again endeavouring to seduce him from his duty. Therefore, I suggest that this is not only a, new offence, but an extremely wide and vague offence.
It may be asked whether we think it is desirable that people should endeavour to seduce soldiers, sailors or airmen from their duty. We do not, and I am not arguing from that point of view, but I do suggest that in these matters there comes a point at which the soldier or the sailor might be trusted to look after himself without any legislation. Even if it be wished to create some such offence as this, it is, after all, a, very much lesser offence than the kind of crime that we
have been considering in these Debates. If it be wished to make it an offence, surely we must do it separately and not bring in all this cumbrous machinery about the possession of documents, search warrants and the rest of it to deal with such a minor crime. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman on second thoughts can see his way to accept the Amendment, I do not think it will injure in any way the main purpose of his Bill. After all, the Bill is not aimed at the kind of minor offender I have tried to describe, but against the man who is endeavouring to conduct Communist agitation and propaganda among the troops. A man like that does not stop short at merely endeavouring to seduce soldiers from their duty. His aim is always to seduce them from their allegiance. I maintain that by carrying this Amendment and restoring the words that were in the Act of 1797 we shall not do anything to weaken the avowed purpose of this Bill, but we shall prevent ourselves from creating this new and vague offence in the criminal law.

3.43 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend has made a closely reasoned speech in favour of this most reasonable Amendment, and I think the Attorney-General would be wise to accept it and to make clear to the public that this Bill is not an attempt to enlarge the scope of historic legislation which has covered propaganda in the Army and Navy in the past. There is a genuine fear outside that the Government are trying to introduce a new spirit into our legislation. I know that the Attorney-General will get up and in his persuasive way profess his innocence and declare that the Bill is merely strengthening and clearing up existing machinery. As a result of the criticism outside and inside the House he has made substantial concessions. If my right hon. and learned Friend will now make this slight alteration, it will satisfy public opinion and allay a good deal of the criticism of the Bill.

3.45 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) who introduced this Amendment moved a similar Amendment in Committee, and I am bound to say that the fact that he
thought it worth while to move it then, and to move it now in what the hon. Gentleman who seconded described as a closely reasoned speech, seems to suggest to me that there is some much greater importance in the distinction which he seeks to make than I might have otherwise suspected. I hope I have shown that the Government are open to arguments on a fair basis even if the arguments seem a little due to unnecessary fears, but on this occasion I have carefully considered the point that was made, and I found myself in one of two positions. Either this is a matter of no moment at all, in which case I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman attaching so much weight to it, and those who have been associated with him in procuring propaganda for their views attaching so much weight to it; or else I find that it is a matter of some importance, and then I have to see whether or not the words in the Bill are the right words.
I was inclined to think that the matter was not of any very great importance; that was my first impression; but on looking into it before the Committee discussed it I began to change my opinion, and I will try and explain my reasons for changing it. "Duty and allegiance" are words which are contained in the Incitement to Mutiny Act of 1797, but that Act of Parliament, as the hon. Gentleman will well know, continued from time to time and was substantially re-enacted in 1817. The Act of that year was described as:
An Act for the punishment of attempts to seduce persons from their duty and allegiance to His Majesty or to incite them to mutiny or disobedience.
The provisions of the Sections of the Act carry out what the Title describes. The hon. Gentleman will notice that the scope of the Act is a double one. It is to prevent persons from attempting to seduce certain members of His Majesty's Forces from their duty and allegiance, and also to prevent them from inciting them to disobedience. Disobedience clearly covers the most minor and unimportant acts which a soldier is commanded to perform. Therefore, you get the combination of two different sets of offences—seducing him from his duty and allegiance, and inciting him to acts of disobedience. In substance, it is the same as the two offences which the hon. Member says this Bill creates, of seduc-
ing a man from his duty and seducing him from his allegiance.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: The words "or allegiance" occur in the Preamble but not in the operative part of the Section.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am not troubling the House by reading out the long verbiage of an early Act of Parliament. I can do so if necessary. I thought that if I read the Title of the Act it would be sufficient. I think that the Title of the Act, subject to any correction which the hon. Gentleman may make, accurately describes the language of the Sections that follow. When I look further into it I find that the Army Act draws a distinction between acts of incitement to disobedience or to mutiny or to, neglect or refusal to obey orders and the seduction of a soldier from his allegiance. For instance, under Section 7 of the Army Act every person subject to military law who endeavours to seduce any person from allegiance to His Majesty is liable to suffer death or such less punishments as the Act mentions. Therefore, it is a separate offence to attempt to seduce a soldier from his allegiance. The other acts which it is illegal to perform, namely, attempting to persuade a soldier to disobey orders, or to disobey so as to show wilful definance of authority, are all enumerated in what the hon. Gentleman rightly described as a number of detailed provisions in the Sections which immediately follow. But the matter does not stop there. When I turn to the Naval Discipline Act, 1866, which is reprinted from time to time so as to bring it up to date in accordance with the most recent decisions of the House, I find that in Sections 12 and 13 it is an offence for certain persons to seduce sailors from their duty or allegiance to His Majesty. The hon. Gentleman quite rightly says that these provisions in the Army Act and the Naval Discipline Act apply only to serving soldiers and sailors, but even that is not quite accurate. The Army Act applies to a serving soldier under military discipline, but the Naval
Discipline Act applies to persons under naval discipline and also to any civilians who may happen to be on one of His. Majesty's ships for the time being.

Mr. FOOT: I said that.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I did not catch that part of what the hon. Member said, but I am glad to have official authority behind me for the statement. The position, therefore, is that sailors and soldiers are under penalty of death or a long term of imprisonment if they seduce a fellow soldier or sailor from his duty or allegiance. I ask myself whether there is any reason why a civilian should be free to commit an offence which a serving soldier or sailor is not free to commit. We know perfectly well that under our Constitution everybody is bound to come to the aid of the civil authority, that everybody is a potential policeman, if I may put it that way; in the same way as, in this realm everybody must regard himself as not in a different class from soldiers and sailors but as one who may be called upon to defend his country but is happy in having other people who have undertaken that very responsible duty on his behalf in ordinary times of peace and quiet.
If the hon. Member attaches such importance to the distinction between "duty and allegiance" and "duty or allegiance" I cannot help saying that there would be something quite wrong in submitting that a soldier or sailor is under any stricter obligation with regard to not inciting a man to commit a breach of his duty or allegiance than is a civilian. I think it, would be intolerable if a soldier or sailor were to be liable to a long term of imprisonment for an offence which a civilian might commit with impunity. I hope I have not been too technical or legal in my statement of the position. Having regard to the great importance which the hon. Member and his friends attach to this point, I am bound to attach the same importance to it, and I ask the House to say that it is not the very trifling matter which the ingenious gentleman who seconded the Amendment appeared to suggest. If it be a trifling matter I do not understand why, after two days had been devoted to it in Committee upstairs, we have been asked to consider it again this afternoon. If, on the other hand, it be not a trifling matter, I respectfully suggest that my view is the right one.

3.55 p.m.

Major MILNER: I am sure the House is grateful to the learned Attorney-General for the exposition of the law which he has given us, but, if I under-
stand him aright, he has now gone back upon every word which he has previously said, both publicly and privately, and in letter form, because up and down the country, in Committee and in correspondence, he has said that this Bill creates no new crime. I take it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman now admits that, in fact, this Bill does create a new crime.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Will the hon. and gallant Member refer me to a single letter or statement in which I have made that statement without qualification? Has he got one here?

Major MILNER: I have the reports of the Committee here, and I can turn the statement up in a very short time. Also, I happen to have this handy—that the Prime Minister's journal, the "Newsletter," in an article this month, follows what the Attorney-General has said, and goes on to say:
The Bill, as he explained,"—
That is, the Attorney-General—
is merely a procedure Bill, which deals with an old crime"—
Implying that it does not constitute a new crime—
and makes the machinery for dealing with it more efficient.
In point of fact, I hope the House will attach the utmost importance to the difference between this Bill and the words in the 1797 Act. I think some note should be taken of the fact that the 1797 Act was a temporary Measure to deal with special difficulties, namely a mutiny at the Nore and elsewhere. When it was re-enacted in 1817 the words used were "mutiny and disobedience." In my submission, to constitute an offence under that Act there has to be both mutiny and disobedience.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The words are "mutiny or disobedience."

Major MILNER: I am reading from Archbold's Criminal Pleadings. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman tells me that is not accurate, I shall have to bow to his view, but the words are "incitement to mutiny and disobedience," which in my submission imply that there has to be mutiny and disobedience. I suggest that a mutiny implies a collective act. One individual cannot mutiny, it requires a number to do that, and, there-
fore the Bill does constitute a new offence in so far, at any rate, as the 1797 Act is concerned, and I defy the Attorney-General to disprove it. There is a new crime constituted by the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is not the hon. and gallant Member mixing up "crime" and "offence"? There is no new crime created, but a new offence is created.

Major MILNER: I am perfectly content to accept my hon. and gallant Friend's statement that a new "offence" is created, if he prefers to use that expression. It has been suggested that this Bill is a small matter, dealing merely with procedure, intended merely to get at a small man who in a small way distributes literature, or something of that sort, which is likely to seduce His Majesty's Forces, but it is a much more serious thing than that. There are many matters which can be dealt with under this Bill when it becomes law which can-riot be dealt with now. The Attorney-General agrees that there are ample provisions to deal with the question of one soldier seducing another soldier, but he puts to the House the proposition that there ought to be provisions in the law under which a civilian shall also be liable for attempting to seduce a soldier or sailor or airman from his duty. I, personally, have no objection to the words "duty and allegiance." I think that no one ought to be permitted to endeavour to seduce a man from his duty and allegiance to His Majesty, but I do not for one moment agree that it is right and proper for an Act, with the serious consequences that this Measure would have, to be passed into law at this stage to deal with the matter of duty alone. Under this Bill, if it became law, if a wife persuaded her soldier-husband to overstay his leave, the wife would be guilty of an offence under the Bill.

Mr. DIXEY: It is qualified by the words "maliciously and advisedly."

Major MILNER: The House will appreciate at once that the wife might "maliciously and advisedly" prevail upon her husband not to return to duty. She might prevail upon him, if he were called upon to go abroad, not to report at Southampton. Without question, there are not one but 100 new circumstances which might constitute offences. There are much more
serious matters than that of a wife persuading her husband or a girl her sweetheart to overstay his leave. There are cases, which might easily happen, of endeavouring to persuade soldiers, for instance, not to act in a firing squad. There may be many soldiers with a conscientious objection to shooting a man in cold blood, as we know was done on many occasions during the War.
There is, in my submission, a much more serious matter behind all this. It seems to me that, supposing a state of war were declared to-morrow, it might be possible—in fact, I think it would be very likely—that the present Government would immediately pass a Military Service Act such as was passed during the War, whereby, for instance, all the males between the ages of 18 and 42 were deemed to be members of His Majesty's Forces. If that were the case, any pacifist propaganda of any kind, any literature or any propaganda addressed to any section of the community, certainly between the ages of 18 and 42, would be an offence under this Bill, even although that propaganda might not be addressed to seducing soldiers or sailors from their allegiance, and was merely concerned with attempting to prevail upon them not to take part in a war.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: What is in the mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the distinction between not obeying orders as far as duty is concerned, and allegiance to His Majesty? Suppose soldiers or sailors, or both, were called out to maintain civil order and someone endeavoured to induce them not to obey the order to go out, would that be a dereliction from duty, or, on the other hand, non-allegiance to His Majesty?

Major MILNER: I think, quite clearly a mere dereliction of duty. I should be no party, and I believe no one on these benches would be a party, to endeavour to seduce anyone from allegiance to His Majesty, but there are 101 circumstances where it might be right and proper, in the opinion of many people, to endeavour to prevail upon soldiers not to carry out some particular duty.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: That is my point; you are in favour of that.

Major MILNER: For instance, if the Army were going to be used to break a strike or anything of that sort, I should
think it perfectly proper for me to address, even directly, members of His Majesty's Forces that they ought not to take the action which they were ordered to take in that particular matter. Of course, such a case—I do not know whether it has been referred to in my absence—the Curragh case occurred in 1914. There, as I understand, officers refused to obey orders, or intimated that they would not, and would prefer to resign. They would be guilty, without question I think, of an offence under this Bill in its present form, but no one would suggest that they were lacking in allegiance to His Majesty. On the contrary, they thought that they were taking the right and proper course, having in mind that allegiance, in refusing to obey orders in those particular circumstances. In my submission, there is an enormous difference between the words "duty and allegiance" and the words "duty or allegiance." I very much hope that the House may insist upon the original words in the Incitement to Mutiny Act, "duty and allegiance," being inserted.
The learned Attorney-General challenged me to give him an instance where he stated that this Bill was merely a re-enactment of the old law, and did not create a fresh offence. Here is one instance which my hon. Friend has handed to me. True, it was the Solicitor-General in this instance, but the Attorney-General may agree with him. The Solicitor-General said:
The Clause really re-enacts, with very minor differences, the existing law, and the offence constituted by the Clause is already a felony—a serious class of offence known to our criminal law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 8th May, 1934, col. 25.]

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. and learned Friend is not here. The hon. and gallant Gentleman stated that one of us said that the Measure created no new offence. Now he quotes a sentence from the learned Solicitor-General saying that the Clause creates no new offence.

Major MILNER: Does the learned Attorney-General draw any distinction between the Bill and the Clauses in it? That is what he is doing now. There is no distinction. The Clause, obviously, is in the Bill, and a statement of that sort made in reference to a Clause was
made in reference to the Bill. This is a serious matter. I was not altogether clear from what the Attorney-General said whether he really was determined to resist this Amendment. I rather gathered that, under pressure, he might
be disposed to accept it. I very much hope that he will, because this matter has caused a great deal of anxiety, and I am sure that he himself has had a great many letters about it and representations of one sort or another. He has admittedly already given way on a great many matters in this Bill, and I suggest that this one is not in his view of great importance, and it would tend to expedite business and allay a good many anxieties if the Amendment were accepted.

4.10 p.m.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I feel obliged to take part in the Debate on account of the very important statement which has just been made by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner). As I understand it, he has based the whole of his agreement with this Amendment on the ground that there is a great distinction between seducing a man from his duty and from his allegiance to His Majesty. I put the specific question to him with regard to the use of either naval men or army men in a civil dispute, and whether, if anyone were to endeavour to seduce them from their duty, whatever their orders might be with regard to maintaining order in that dispute, that would be merely a dereliction of duty, or whether it would come under the question of allegiance to His Majesty, and his reply was that it would be merely a dereliction of duty. That is the whole crux of the question. The hon. and gallant Member, therefore and, I suppose, the whole of the Socialist party—I do not know whether the Mover of the Amendment is of the same opinion —desire that the maintenance of order by means of the Army or Navy should no longer be above politics, and that anybody should be permitted to endeavour to seduce the troops from carrying out their orders and thereby prevent them from maintaining order. If that were to come into effect, there would be no more liberty in this country.
We have heard a great deal in this Debate about the liberty of the subject, but if the men of the Navy, Army and Air Force are to be subject to seduction
from their duty without that being an offence, then there will be no more liberty for anybody in this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "The quarter-deck!"] I would know perfectly well how to deal with them on the quarter-deck. One of the greatest blessings which this country has got is the absolute confidence of the people that law and order will be maintained, ultimately if necessary by the armed forces, whatever civil disturbance there may be, or whatever the cause of that civil disturbance may be. Very often that is not so in foreign countries. The cause of unrest and trouble in foreign countries frequently in history has been due to the fact that men, either civilians or soldiers, have got hold of the army and used it for their own particular political purposes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] Yes, politically they have used the weapon of the Army in civil strife. I would deplore the day if it ever came into force in this country, because it would be the end of our liberties. I would ask the hon. Member who moved this Amendment whether he agrees with the Socialist party that it should not be an offence for anybody to endeavour to seduce soldiers or sailors from their duty in the maintenance of order when there is civil strife in this country? Does he agree with the Socialist party?

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I made it quite clear that I was not in favour of people endeavouring to seduce troops from their duty, and I did not say that if some satisfactory distinction could be arrived at between serious breaches of duty and trivial breaches of duty I should not be in favour of making that an offence, hut I said that I was entirely against putting this comparatively minor offence, which has never existed up to the present time, in this Bill, with all its complicated provisions about the possession of documents, and so forth.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: After the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds I think the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) will now see that this is not a minor matter but one of great importance. Has he not changed the opinion that he. had before the hon. and gallant Member spoke? I hope that the House and the country will now be perfectly clear about the opposition to the Bill. The Socialist party desire that they shall be
perfectly free to endeavour to seduce the members of His Majesty's Forces from carrying out their duty in the case of any civil disturbance. That is one of their aims and objects in opposing the Bill. They desire to use the Forces of the Crown for their own political purposes and to bring politics into the Services. The day when that comes will mean the end of the liberty of the subject in this country.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: After the very rousing challenge that has just come from the quarter deck, may I say that the state of affairs which he envisages would quite clearly, in my opinion, be a breach of allegiance and not merely a breach of duty, and I think that it would be so held in a court of law. I do not know whether the Attorney-General would agree, but I have very little doubt that it would be so, and therefore the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) does not arise. I should like to suggest to the hon. Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Mr. Dixey), who intervened just now with regard to the word "maliciously," that the presence of the word does not add what he thinks it does. It is used in a good many Acts of Parliament, and does not as a rule mean personal spite but deliberately doing the act which constitutes the offence. I think the Attorney-General will agree that in any trial under this Bill no extra evidence would have to be produced to prove malice; if the facts were proved, malice would follow as a matter of course. That is my reading of the Bill.
My main reason for rising is to draw attention to the extraordinary nature of the defence put forward by the Attorney-General, in regard to this Amendment, which is as serious a thing as the words of the Clause itself. What the Attorney-General has put before us quite plainly is that if anything is an offence on the part of a soldier or a sailor it should be an offence for a civilian. That seems to me to be a proposition which would not he supported by any of the great constitutional lawyers upon whom we rely. What is the Army Act for, if the duties of civilians and of soldiers and sailors are the same? Why should it be necessary to put down that very long
series of enactments, the whole point of which is to create offences for the serving soldier and sailor and not for the civilian? Everyone realises that those who put on His Majesty's uniform, as so many Members of this House have done from time to time, feel that they take upon themselves obligations and duties which did not attach to them in their civilian capacity, and that if they are found guilty under the special Acts which govern the Services they have no right to complain of punishment for something, which, as a civilian, they could have done with impunity.
Now the Attorney-General suggests that this is an entirely unreal distinction. It seems dangerous to suggest that we should bring the whole body of civilians within the ambit of military law. The suggestion is that we are all to be drilled, and not only the soldiers and sailors. We have seen the military spirit creeping along in other countries until it goes beyond the actual service of the Crown, and is brought to bear upon the whole civilian population. When we look at countries like Germany we see the way in which civilians have been drilled into subjection, and we have been rather proud that such things were not done and were not necessary among ourselves. This proposal of the Attorney-General seems to go far beyond the actual importance of the Amendment, important as that is, and that a representative of the Crown should, by any inadvertent word of his, give out that he is sanctioning the militarisation of our ordinary life, would be a most disastrous thing to go out from this House. People who are not ordinarily concerned with politics are gravely concerned with this question of liberty, as all will have realised who read the recent magnificent Rectorial Address of General Smuts. To him, the gradual sacrifice of liberty is something to which everybody's attention should be called. General Smuts was looking mainly at the things which alarmed him, but if anyone like him should read the report of what the Attorney-General has just said they will be very gravely alarmed that the poison is spreading almost without anybody noticing. I beg the Attorney-General to reconsider the matter and, if he cannot reconsider the Amendment, to reconsider his definition.

4.22 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I rise to clear up a misapprehension which is in the mind of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) in regard to the argument addressed to the House by the Attorney-General. My right hon. and learned Friend was not suggesting, and he is surprised that any misunderstanding should arise, that in all matters the civilian population should be subject to military law and that the same category of offences which we know have a special character and apply to those who subject themselves to the Army Act, ever could or should apply to civilians.

Sir P. HARRIS: Did the hon. and learned Gentleman hear the speech of his right hon. and learned Friend?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes.

Sir P. HARRIS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was no distinction between the civilian and the soldier.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I heard the speech made by the Mover of the Amendment and the Attorney-General's reply; my right hon. and learned Friend was speaking solely in regard to the definition of this particular offence in the Naval Discipline Act. This is an offence unlike a great many offences in the Army Act, and it is an offence whether the civilian does it or whether a member of the Forces does it. It is an offence for either a member of the Forces or a civilian to incite another member of the Forces to disaffection, and my right hon. and learned Friend was tracing how the House has defined this offence on successive occasions. The old Act of 1797—I have provided myself with the actual words—says "duty and allegiance" but when this House considered the Naval Discipline Act of 1860 and was dealing with a similar offence when committed by a sailor, it made the alteration that we are proposing to make in the Bill, that is to say, instead of saying "duty and allegiance," it said "duty or allegiance." So far as this specific offence of incitement is concerned, there is no conceivable reason why a soldier or sailor should be subjected to a code different from that to which the civilian is subjected. The arguments against this offence, which is of a subversive nature,
are exactly the same whether they apply to anyone in the armed forces or to a civilian. It would not be right for this House to draw a distinction between the offence defined in the Bill and that defined in the Naval Discipline Act.
The deduction drawn by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough was a complete misapprehension of the nature of the argument which was put before the House by the Attorney-General. I do not wish to repeat that argument. Different persons may hold slightly different views as to where duty ends and allegiance begins. A perfectly possible view is that allegiance, when applied to a soldier and sailor, subsumes in itself the duties which have been undertaken by the soldier and sailor; it is also possible for anyone to imagine circumstances in which no sensible person—I hope we are sensible in this country—would dream of launching a prosecution. Instead of endeavouring to define the difference between seducing from duty and seducing from allegiance, assuming that there is some substantial difference —which I do not admit— we think it is right to follow the precedent of the Naval Discipline Act and to make it an offence if a civilian endeavours to seduce a member of the Forces from his duty, because his duty includes the obligations which he has undertaken and upon which the national existence may depend.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman seems rather concerned about the inference being drawn from the speech of the Attorney-General by hon. Members on this side of the House. The significant fact about the discussion on this Amendment is the inference drawn by the supporters of the Government. One hon. and gallant Gentleman immediately showed us the logic of the speech and wishes he had us on the quarter-deck. By a process of elimination of the speeches made in Committee, it is clear that it is the type of mind represented by the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) which has made this Bill possible. I have the good fortune to have the Committee reports containing the speeches upon this point. I think that the Solicitor-General has been put up to tone things down, because the Attorney-General is rather alarmed at the infer-
ence which his own people have drawn from the fact that he wants to apply the same law to civilians as applies to soldiers and sailors. That is a fair deduction from the speech that he made. We are now getting to know what type of mind is behind the Bill. If hon. Members will look at the Clause with which we are dealing, they will see that certain words which were clearly in the old Mutiny Act are not in the Bill, and I believe that the hon. and gallant Member for South East Leeds (Major Milner) was responsible for the elimination of those words. During the Committee stage the Attorney-General did not quite know what was in the minds of the people who drafted the Bill. I think that that is really the situation. This is what he said in Committee:
I cannot conceive anybody really thinking that, as long as man is under a duty to His Majesty or to his country, having freely, as we do in this country, chosen to serve in His Majesty's Force, he ought to be seduced from his duty. There might be some niggling point whether he was only seduced from his duty and not from his allegiance.
I gathered that it was not a niggling speech when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking just now.
I should think that that very likely was the reason why the words in the Naval Discipline Act were made as they read today, and as they are constantly reaffirmed by this House. It would be intolerable if a member of the Navy were asked to neglect his duty to go on board, for instance, after leave, and if it should be open to him to say, "It is quite true I have been seduced from my duty to go on board at the end of my leave, but I am prepared to sing God save the King, and therefore I have not been seduced from my allegiance.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 15th May, 1934, col. 66.]
That is the substance of the speech that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made in Committee, and I submit that it is a different kind of speech from that which he made this afternoon. To-day, of course, he is armed with all the necessary knowledge of the military and naval law, and he lays it down very definitely that there is no reason why a civilian should be exempt from and soldiers and sailors should be subject to certain penalties under the same conditions. As he himself said, a soldier or sailor undertakes certain duties, and he knows very well that, as has just been pointed out,
men in the Services are very conscious of it. The only point that I rose to make was that the Attorney-General was not as sure in Committee as to the reasons for this distinction as he is today. It is quite clear that the original idea behind this Bill was that the average civilian should be subject to the jack-boot and the quarter-deck in the same way as the average soldier or sailor. I do not think that the Attorney-General has done himself any good, or that the explanation of the Solicitor-General has at all improved the position.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. RADFORD: I should not have intervened in the discussion on this Amendment if it had not been for the speech of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith). There is no question at all about any soldier or sailor who fails in his allegiance to His Majesty, or in his duties, being subject to heavy penalties, nor is there any question about any member of His Majesty's Forces who induces a soldier or sailor to commit such an offence being also liable to heavy penalties; but to say, as the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough said, that to make civilians similarly liable to punishment if they induce members of His Majesty's Forces to commit any breach of duty is militarising our nation, is an absolute travesty of words. I think it is an ill thing that a member of the great old Liberal party should talk about that being a militarisation of our nation, and say that it would be the death of our liberties if civilians were not to be free to induce the men in our Services to disobey orders and commit a breach of their duties.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. WILMOT: I think it would be a pity if the discussion of this important matter were obscured in the minds of the ordinary people to whom the law applies, either by an excess of legal verbiage or by the sort of rollicking bravo that came from the old salt from Paddington. I use that expression as a marine compliment. One would imagine, after hearing such a speech as that of the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor), that the British Navy is honeycombed with sedition, that it is on the verge of mutiny, and that it would only require
some dangerous Communist to drop a leaflet and the whole thing would topple over in disgrace and ignominy. We know very well that that is a most ridiculous travesty of the situation.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is the hon. Member accusing me of suggesting in my speech that the Navy was on the verge of a revolution?

Mr. WILMOT: I was venturing to suggest that.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Then I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw that statement, for there is no foundation for it whatever in anything that I said.

Mr. WILMOT: I cannot withdraw the impression that was created in my mind, and the impression which I gathered from the hon. and gallant Member's speech was that, if these serious penalties were required, and the terrible trumpetings from the quarter-deck were justified, there must be something pretty dirty down below.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: If the hon. Member will allow me to interrupt him again, the danger really is from the agitator outside endeavouring to seduce the simple sailor. It is not at all that the sailor is discontented or in a state of mutiny or revolution, but we wish to prevent people outside from endeavouring to seduce him from his duty.

Mr. WILMOT: I am very much obliged for that assurance. Probably the hon. and gallant Member was in a different command, but I happened to be a simple sailor myself for some years between 1914 and 1918—

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: You have lost your simplicity since.

Mr. WILMOT: That may well be. After all, since coming to this House I have made contact with superior ratings. But the fact remains that all this talk about mutiny in the Navy is talk about something that does not exist. There has only been one occasion since the War when there has been any breath of a question of mutiny in the Navy, and that kind of trouble was not due to Communist agitators; it was due to this kind of attitude on the quarter-deck, and the best way to get rid of the causes of that kind of disaffection is to remove the grievances
from which the naval ratings believed, and justly believed, that they suffered.
The point of this Amendment does appear at first sight to be a very narrow legal point, but surely it is true that a new offence is being created, and the new offence is a very wide one. It could be a very serious thing—I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to follow me in this—to seduce a soldier or sailor from his duty, or it could be an altogether trivial thing. It depends upon the nature of the duty which he is persuaded not to perform. I take it that my hon. and gallant Friend would not flog his men for the loss of a toothbrush, but it is undoubtedly a breach of their duties in looking after their kit. This Clause attaches the most serious penalties to an offence which may be either very grave or very trivial.
We on this side of the House feel, rightly or wrongly, that we have a certain duty to the public to perform in this matter. We are not sedition merchants; we are people here who are properly engaged in examining an Act of Parliament in all its effects, and, when it is introduced in the circumstances of to-day, that examination is all the more necessary. Here is a Government the sole claim of which to respect is that it is a strong Government. It certainly is a strong Government in that it commands a record majority. Here it is to-day neglecting the real problems that confront the country to use its big majority to force through this House of Parliament a Bill which certainly has no other effect than to restrict the liberties of the public. One would have thought, listening to the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington, that until this Act is passed there is no means at all of maintaining the discipline of the Forces. What nonsense that is ! The Government are armed, and the Services are armed, with ample power to maintain the discipline of the Forces, and to pretend that, if this alteration of a word in this Clause were made, the entire discipline of the Forces would collapse, is just nonsense. The Clause leaves quite indefinite the kind of offence that will call down these penalties.
This Bill in its whole conception has a political flavour. It seeks to prevent the spread of certain kinds of political ideas. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] Yes, it does. Certain kinds of political ideas may be very undesirable political ideas, but they are political ideas, and it is the effect of
certain political ideas that this Bill is designed to avert. But these words in Clause 1 cover such a variety of offences that surely nothing would be lost, and everything would be gained, by adopting the Amendment now proposed. What the Bill really proposes, if I read the intentions of its sponsors aright, is that people who try to seduce men from their duty and allegiance shall be guilty of an offence. If that be the intention, I would ask the Attorney-General to remove the doubts, the misconceptions and the apprehensions which are widely held in this matter, by defining more precisely what is the offence at which the Bill is aimed.

Mr. PIKE: May I ask the hon. Member to clear up one point that he made. He stated in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) that during the War for four years he served as a sailor. Yesterday he said:
I remember very well when I was a soldier in uniform during the War, going into a police court in the New Forest to shelter from the rain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1934; col. 142, Vol. 293.]
On cannot possibly be a sailor from 1914 to 1918 and a soldier at one and the same time. If has has really forgotten which allegiance he was bound to, how can we accept his views on the Bill?

Mr. WILMOT: I will answer the question although it hardly helps the discussion of the Bill or adds to the dignity of the House. I joined the Navy and was subsequently transferred to the Royal Air Force, and it was in the latter capacity that I spoke of myself as a soldier.

4.47 p.m.

Captain J. H. LOCKWOOD: The motive for the Amendment stands condemned by the Mover and also by the Seconder of it. It astonishes me that in a matter of this kind it can be suggested that we should create offences which are to be judged as to whether they are offences or not by the degree of importance or the degree of severity of them. It is amazing that we have the Mover and Seconder agreeing that it is possible that a breach of duty can be so severe as to warrant the definition in this Bill. They admitted it over and over again. Having once admitted that it is possible for a breach of duty to be so serious as to require to be dealt with under the Bill, I think the
whole of their submission that there may be trivial offences goes, and it is rather a pity that we have been spending so much time on unnecessary matters and trivialities and personalities. The only reason they can put forward why we should not enact this Measure is some silly explanation as to a soldier growing a moustache. It is frittering away the time of the House. Laws are made for general application, and we can never make a law on the basis that it shall only be a law for serious offences and not one for minor offences. Dealing with small offences is an every day matter for those in control of the administration, and, even when they come before the Courts, as provided in the Bill, great discretion is allowed. There may be the maximum punishment or there may be none at all. We have been spending all this time on an Amendment when it is admitted by the Mover and Seconder that there is an offence, and we are only asked to accept it because there may be a triviality.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: The hon. and gallant Member has entirely misunderstood my argument, which was not that this should be an offence but that it should not be an offence under the Bill.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. PALING: I do not think the discussion has been trivial at all. It includes a very important point indeed. The Attorney-General on the Second Reading tried to give the impression that the Bill was necessary in order to deal with a certain class of persons who were doing certain things more easily because of the way in which the law allows them to be dealt with at present. He assured the House that the Bill, in other matters was relatively unimportant and that it was not their desire to create any new offence. The purpose of the discussion has been to point out that the Bill as worded does create a new offence. The Attorney-General in Committee, as far as I could gather, tried to argue that it did not. Since then he himself says that he has gone closely into the matter, and I think his speech to-day is an admission that he has found that it is a new offence. He says that, although the Act of 1797 says "and" instead of "or," since that time there have been other Acts which include the word "or," and he referred
to the Naval Act of 1866. It has been pointed out that that Act is limited in its scope and only applies to the people in the Navy under certain conditions and not to the general population, so that as regards the general population a new offence is created. If I am not mistaken, the wording in one of the Army Acts that he read out was "and" and not "or" Am I right in that?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It only mentions the word "allegiance," without duty being coupled with it as an alternative. It mentions allegiance in one Section, and in the other Section it mentions a number of special acts of disobedience and neglect of duty.

Mr. PALING: Am I right in assuming that the Army Act does not support the right hon. and learned Gentleman as effectively as the Naval Act did?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It does not leap to the eye at once, but a little examination discovers that the position is exactly the same.

Mr. PALING: I think I am right that it does not support the right hon. and learned Gentleman's contention as effectively as the Naval Act does. It appears to me that, as far as the civilian population is concerned, there is a new offence. If that be so, in view of the Attorney-General's claim on the Second Reading that there was no intention to create a new offence, I suggest that there is every reason why we should accept the Amendment.
I think there is a clear difference between allegiance and duty. It is the intention of the Bill to get at certain people who are supposed to have been distributing literature of a kind likely to lead to rebellion, and ultimately to change the Constitution. That can be dealt with under the law as it now stands, but it works very slowly and cumbrously, and the right hon. Gentleman wants to get it more quickly. But it does more than that. It is going to bring under the new law a whole class of people who are not under the old law as it stands. Those people will be guilty of the crime of sedition for doing things vastly different from the things I have just described, that is, trying to bring about insurrection or rebellion.
Suppose there is an industrial dispute. It drags on, tempers are frayed and feel-
ling runs high. Eventually it is thought worth while to use the troops to preserve law and order. The men taking part in the strike feel intensely and keenly that they are right and they are exceedingly anxious to win. They are anxious that the soldiers shall not do anything to injure their chances. They feel so keenly that one or perhaps half-a-dozen of them exhort the soldiers not to shoot down their fellow men who are engaged in a fight for economic justice. If a man makes a speech like that, will he come under the new law and will he be guilty of sedition? Is there any difference between such a crime, if crime it be, and the crime of a man who purposely issues a pamphlet for the purpose of bringing about insurrection? I am very much afraid that, if this word "or" goes in, making a dereliction of duty a seditious crime, scores of these people may for the first time in their lives be guilty of sedition when they have not the remotest intention of doing anything of a seditious nature and when they are probably as loyal to the Constitution as any member of the Tory party.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. D I XEY: Had the Amendment been moved by Members sitting below the hon. Member, I should have been agreeable to the logic of it, but such an Amendment coming from the Liberal party is more than I can tolerate without offering some opposition. It can never be suggested that this is just a technical Amendment to leave out "or" and substitute "and" It is a deliberate endeavour by the Liberal party to make a gesture of their independent position in the country and to show that they are opposed to the warlike policy of the Government. The Mover knows quite well that the words "maliciously" and "advisedly" entirely qualify the question whether it is a duty or an allegiance. When an illustration was asked for, the best that could be brought forward was that a man might be seduced by his wife to remain a day over his leave, and it was said that that would be an offence. I have no complaint against Members on the bench below who are frankly opposed to everything in the Bill and who believe that at a time of industrial strife every effort should be made to seduce soldiers from their duty or allegiance. It is a point of view which I oppose, but I can understand it. But I cannot understand why Members be
longing to a great party should come to this House and move an Amendment of this nature. I do not wonder that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who came to the House during the discussion on the Amendment, did not stay very long to listen to Members of his distinguished ex-party. [Interruption.] I am simply making a statement of fact. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs came to the House and heard the hon. Gentleman from those benches moving this particular Amendment, and I noticed that he did not waste much of his valuable time.
I would say to the Liberal party that this is not a bona fide Amendment, and that it is one which should never have been brought by such a party. There is no genuine fear concerning any person likely to be charged under the wording of this particular Clause. The question as to "duty or allegiance," as hon. Members know quite well, is only a matter which our courts of law can possibly decide. It is a matter which the eminent lawyers in this House would have the greatest difficulty in deciding. In this country there is always a proper and adequate interpretation by trial by a sympathetic judge and jury. We have had stupid and idiotic illustrations, such as a man being held to have failed under the wording of the Clause because he overstayed his leave by a day because he was persuaded to do so by his wife, or a man being on parade without a toothbrush, and absurdities of that kind. These are the illustrations which are given when we ask for examples of how a man can fail in his "duty or allegiance." The substitution of the word "or" for "and," in my opinion—I admit that I am a very common or garden solicitor—would not prevent such actions as those from coming under this Clause as it at present stands or with the substitution of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. In spite of the facts and circumstances which the hon. Member has so vividly given to the House, it would still be an offence under the Clause even if the Amendment were accepted. Therefore, the illustrations which have been given have no bearing whatever on the Amendment. I think that that will be the view generally felt in the hon. Member's party, and on the Front Bench opposite. We should be pleased to hear one or two of
the eminent legal representatives on the benches opposite, including the ex-Solicitor-General. I should have thought that on this all important question, which vitally affects the position of people in this country, and in view of the cruelties supposed to be imposed by the Government upon unsuspecting people, the leading legal representative on the Front Bench opposite would have made a speech, especially as it is a subject about which he knows so
much.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: It is common knowledge to the House that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is enraged elsewhere, which is the reason for his absence.

Mr. JANNER: I should like the hon. Member to answer the question which he said he would answer in the course of his speech. Will he define, for the benefit of the House, the meaning of the words "duty or allegiance"

Mr. DIXEY: The meaning of those words is that if any charge is made under this Clause it must be on the ground that there is evidence of an attempt to seduce a person from duty or allegiance. Those words are a sufficient safeguard to ensure that the person who does this sort of thing is deliberately doing it for the purpose of causing trouble, and they have nothing to do with an illustration such as that of the wife who persuaded her husband to overstay his leave. She would not do that maliciously, but would do it out of natural inclination. I hope that the Government will resist to the utmost an Amendment which is unworthy of the great traditions of a party which is led or semi-led by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot).

6.8 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I would like to say, in reply to what the hon. Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Mr. Dixey) has said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is absent from the House at the special request of the miners in order to attend the Gresford Pit disaster inquiry.

Mr. DIXEY: I am very sorry. I know now that I should not have said that, and I apologise.

Mr. BEVAN: This Amendment would not have been on the Order Paper at all were it not for the fact that a real change in the law is taking place. I resent very bitterly the charge which has been thrown across the House that we are wasting the time of the House in putting down an Amendment of this kind. Very much more attention would have been given to this part of the Bill if the Attorney-General had not misled the House on the Second Reading. I am not saying that the Attorney-General deliberately misled the House. The Law Officers of the Crown have a special position in the House, and when they are in charge of a Bill it is their duty to explain to the House what alterations in the law are proposed. That is their first duty and puts them in a very special position. Any other Member of the Government is usually entitled to, and indeed does, misrepresent his Bill as much as possible, but the Law Officers of the Crown have a special duty to make the provisions of a Bill clear. It was obvious to me when I listened to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the Second Reading, and it is more obvious now that I have re-read the speech, that the Attorney-General had the Bill put into his hands. It did not originate in his own office at all because obviously he had not looked at it. I would hesitate to charge the Attorney-General with deliberately misleading the House, and it is obvious that the Bill originated in one of the Service Departments whose representatives have been conspicuously absent throughout the whole of these Debates. I see one of the representatives on the Front Bench now, and I should be charmed if he will speak, but I doubt very much if he will create a wise precedent in the course of this Bill by saying a few words to the House. It is clear that the Bill originated in the Service Departments, and no doubt the Attorney-General accepted it very unwillingly and did not know very much about it, and hoped that it would get through without being noticed very much. As I do not know much about legal matters, I am bound to say that after listening to the speech of the Attorney-General on the Second Reading, I thought that this was a little Bill which did not matter very much, but since then a great deal of legal examination has taken place and many defects in the Bill have been dis-
closed. The Attorney-General said on the Second Reading that the Bill did nothing but repeat the language of the incitement to Mutiny Act. That is precisely what it does not do, so that the Attorney-General obviously did not understand the Bill on that occasion.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sure the hon. Member does not mean to misrepresent me. He says that the Attorney-General said that Clause 1 repeated the language of the 'Mutiny Act. I did not say that. What I said was that
this Bill, in Clause 1, merely re-enacts what is the law to-day."— OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1934; col. 741, Vol. 288.]

Mr. BEVAN: That is precisely what it does not do, as I understand it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted the Naval Discipline Act as the precedent upon which he was basing the language of the first Clause. As I understand it—and he will correct me if I am wrong, because I have not his advantages—the Naval Discipline Act addresses itself to the sailors, and not to the civilian population. The Bill is addressing itself to the civilian population, and makes it an offence for the civilian population, and not sailors.

Mr. HOWARD: Why not?

Mr. BEVAN: If the hon. Gentleman will put his brain to work for a moment he will see that the argument which is being addressed to the House is that this creates a new offence, and we want to know what has given rise to this sort of thing. Why is it that it is necessary now to make this an offence when no case has been made out for any necessity for the change?

Mr. CAPORN: What is the new offence?

Mr. BEVAN: The new offence is that a civilian shall not seduce a member of His Majesty's Forces from his duty or allegiance.

Mr. CAPORN: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest, apart altogether from the Statute, that it would not be an offence at Common Law to endeavour to seduce a member of His Majesty's Forces from his duty or allegiance?

Mr BEVAN: I do not understand an hon. Member who has been in this House for so many years making an interruption of that sort, because if an offence is a
crime now under the Common Law what is the use of making an alteration on the Statute Book?

Mr. CAPORN: For the simple reason of providing a simple remedy for dealing with it by means of a summary offence before the magistrate.

Mr. BEVAN: The right hon. and learned Gentleman on the Second Reading told the House they were endeavouring in the first Clause to repeat substantially what is the existing law. The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought really to withdraw from that position or apologise, because that is not what is being done, as he knows very well. First of all, in the Incitement to Mutiny Act the language is, "duty and allegiance," so that this makes an alteration without any case being made out. In the second place, when he quoted the Naval Discipline Act, he further misled the House, because the Naval Discipline Act has addressed itself only to members of the Navy. It is a member of the Navy who is guilty of an offence if he seduces any member of the Navy from his duty or allegiance. The right hon. Gentleman I am quite sure—he is a person of the most meticulous scruples—did riot desire at all to mislead the House on that occasion, but obviously he did not understand the Bill, because he did not want the Bill. He had not seen the Bill before, and indeed, he would like to forget all about it now, if he could. We have not had any arguments from the Attorney-General as to why this alteration in the law is required.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Why should not the promoter of the Bill be here?

Mr. BEVAN: We ought to have here the promoter of the Bill, who, according to the Attorney-General, is the Prime Minister. If the promoter is the Prime Minister, its ambiguity is understood. The Government have decided that they cannot retreat from the position they have taken up. On the Second Reading of the Bill the argument addressed to the House by the Attorney-General in justification of the Bill was that certain leaflets were being distributed among His Majesty's Forces by the Communist party. That is the only concrete bit of fact that we have had brought forward. Most of the rest was hyperbole. These leaflets are attempts to seduce the
members of His Majesty's Forces from their allegiance, but not from their duty. Allegiance is the general relationship of service to the Crown, whereas duty is the relationship of the individual member to the special job of work that is put in front of him. It would be seducing a member of His Majesty's Forces from his allegiance to distribute leaflets urging the Forces to become a revolutionary body prepared to overthrow the Constitution when the signal was given, or to urge upon them not to take part in any war. The existing law meets that difficulty. The existing law meets every difficulty raised by the Attorney-General in the evidence he gave for the Bill, so that up to the moment we have not been put in possession of any piece of evidence why this legislation is being promoted.
When we come to the question of duty, obviously, the Bill is not intended to deal with the point raised as to a man extending his leave because of the attractiveness of his mistress or his wife. As I understand it, the Attorney-General or the Government expect that in the near future His Majesty's Forces will come into conflict with the civilian population. That seems to be the position. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!] There is no other explanation. As I understand the position, if you distribute a leaflet among His Majesty's Forces and you say: "You may be called upon in the course of your duties to do a special job of work, and we implore you not to do it," that would be seducing them from their allegiance. The job would lie in the future, and it would be of a general character. Supposing that a disturbance took place in South Wales or on Clydeside, or in London, or suppose there were an outbreak among naval officers. Let us suppose that the outbreak was so serious in character and the atmosphere so inflammatory that some young officer, hot-headed, indiscreet and panicky called upon his men to fire upon the crowd. Suppose the leaders of the crowd or the crowd itself called out "Do not shoot." Faced with the possibility of sudden death, members of the crowd might shout to the soldiers "Please do not shoot." That would be seducing them from their duty. The hon. Member opposite smiles, with that sense of irresponsibility which has distinguished him throughout his Parliamentary career.

Mr. DORAN: What about you?

Mr. BEVAN: There have been incidents in the history of this country where His Majesty's Forces have come into sharp personal and sanguinary conflict with the civilian population. It would appear to me that the Attorney-General and the Government expect that the Army and the Air Force will be brought into conflict with the industrial population. If not, what is the sense of the words in the Bill? What do they mean? If the conflict lies in the future and we implore the soldier not to do this thing, then it is seducing him from his allegiance. If the members of His Majesty's Forces come into conflict with the civilian population and they try to impress upon the soldiers not to shoot, that is to be sedition. According to His Majesty's Government the civilian population must allow themselves to be shot. They must not say to the soldiers "Do not shoot us," because that is seducing them from their duty.
I suggest that the Government are doing a great disservice to the country as a whole by creating such an impression. They are arming themselves with powers, and the country is being given to understand that those powers are necessary because the Government fear that a situation in this country is imminent in which such a conflict will take place between the citizens of the country and His Majesty's Forces and it is necessary to put the Forces more severely into quarantine than ever. There are many of us who hold the view that such a change has taken place in the technique of modern warfare in the Army and the training of the Forces of the Crown that they are to a large extent less susceptible to the changes and moods of the general population than they were in pre-War days. In pre-War days the men moved to a much greater extent among the civil population and their arms were different. To-day an airman can drop a bomb on a village, and to him the incident is entirely impersonal. He is not killing human beings, but simply aiming at a target. Only people with a very vivid imagination are capable of visualising the havoc of a bomb. Soldiers can fire rifles and kill people many yards away. The relationship between the soldier and his target has created an entirely new problem, and it may easily
happen that in the future an officer in charge of a company of soldiers will be able to fire more deadly things and be much more indiscreet than officers were in other days. In these circumstances we think that we ought to have powers and rights of propaganda among the Forces of the Crown far greater than we have had before. As I said last night, you ought to take the logical step to deprive members of His Majesty's Forces of the right to vote, because in fact you are making them into robots, with no contact with the civil population.
The Government have made out no case for the change that they propose in the law. Hon. Members have attempted to defend them. I should like to know from the Government the reason why "and" is now changed into "or" The Attorney-General said that it was in the old Acts 'and they were now carrying it into this Act. When a substantial change in the law is being made, the House ought to be provided with a reason for making that change. If we are not provided with that reason we are entitled to suspect the real reason, and our suspicion is that the representatives of the Services in the Government are either apprehensive of the fealty of the members of the Services, or the Government as a whole contemplate in the future bringing the Forces of the Crown into conflict with the civilian population, and they want to alter the law with a view to that situation arising.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. HOWARD: As one who sat on Committee A every day of the 16 days during which the Bill was discussed, and having listened to the speeches yesterday and to-day, I would humbly submit some reasons why I consider the Bill should be supported. In the first place, during the last 10 years ye have seen throughout the Continent of Europe endeavours made to seduce soldiers and sailors from their allegiance in order to effect a successful revolution. We also know that in this country since the general strike many branches of the trade union movement have endeavoured to get at the troops in order that when the next general strike comes the troops will not be ready to respond to the orders of the Government.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member's speech
would appear to be more appropriate to the Third Reading on Friday.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I do not intend to prolong the Debate for many moments, but I would say that what impressed me during the sittings of the Committee was the unfailing courtesy of the Solicitor-General, and I am sorry that those who have cast aspersions upon the genuineness of this Amendment have not shown the same kind of courtesy as the man who is leading them. I do not think the Solicitor-General would suggest that the Amendment has been put down in any light-hearted manner for the purpose of obstruction. We believe that there is some new offence created in this Clause, or, as the Solicitor-General admitted on Second Reading, there is an extension of power. He said:
Looked at broadly, this Bill is, in a sense, a procedure Bill rather than a Bill in any way altering the substance of our law. It takes an old crime, which we all agree still ought to be a crime, and gives certain further powers required."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1934; col. 848, Vol. 288.]
It is idle to pretend that it does not make any difference in the law as it is at present. If that is so, why is it necessary to introduce the Bill? I have listened to the whole of the Debate, and it seems to me that we are forgetting the one great harm of the Bill, and that is not what is stated by the words in the Bill itself but the psychological effect of the provisions of the Bill in the country. I have always looked upon the Liberal party as being the guardians of free expression of opinion. We want to prevent a repetition of what has occurred in every country in Europe.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see how the hon. Member's argument is connected with the substitution of the word "and" for the word "or," or vice versa.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: What I want to say is that the Government are creating two offences where only one offence exists. It is possible for a Government, if so minded, to use this particular power to suppress political opinions which were unfavourable, and which they might dislike. There is absolute danger in extending any powers. We have put down the Amendment for no other purpose but to improve the Bill, and I am certain that
the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General will agree that every moment we spent in Committee was given to a really serious study of the Bill.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. DORAN: It is not my intention to participate in the debate on the Amendment, but, I feel that I must indulge in a few words in reply to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). I had the pleasure of listening to the hon. Member, who accused the hon. and gallant Member for North Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) of having used satanic, poisonous and dangerous impulses, helped no doubt by his co-villains in order to construct this particular Measure now before the country. I did not have the pleasure of attending the Committee which dealt with the Bill, but having heard the speeches of the Socialist leaders and others, there is hardly any necessity for any Member of the Government to say a word about the Bill, because every time they open their mouths they give the game away. They are the poorest actors in the world. If you allow a fool to go on long enough it is not necessary for a wise man to say a word. I am fully aware of the insidious propaganda which these people have been carrying on for years. They are very nervous about something which is going to happen to curtail—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see any connection between the hon. Member's speech and the Amendment before the House. He must confine himself to the Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. Doran) is answering certain remarks made by another hon. Member. Is he not entitled to make a reasoned reply to them?

Mr. DORAN: With all due respect to the Chair, many hon. Members have made observations to-day to which I ant endeavouring to reply. They should have been cautioned when they were going outside the rules of debate.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that he must not criticise the action of the Chair.

Mr. DORAN: I beg your pardon. There was one observation which referred to me personally—that I had spoilt a Parliamentary career. Perhaps in days gone by I might have said something which was not quite in accordance with the ideas of certain people who, shall I say, are expert Parliamentarians.

Mr. BUCHANAN: You and the Prime Minister will soon be in the same company.

Mr. DORAN: If I have the pleasure of being in the Prime Minister's company, I am going to congratulate him. I should like to remind my hon. Friends opposite of one particular thing; it may be something in the nature of a prophecy—I do not know. But when people to-day are saying that the Government are trying to kill the liberty of the subject and free expression of speech, that they are trying to militarise and dragoon and drill the people, I want them to keep in mind this consideration that if their statements are correct and we are going to have a Labour Government in a little while, the first people who ought to be grateful for this Bill are the Socialist party.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I still cannot see any connection between the hon. Member's speech and the Amendment before the House. He must either confine his remarks to the Amendment or resume his seat.

Mr. DORAN: Again I apologise. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) very attentively and respectfully. He has told us what he intends to do, but I would remind him that hon. Members opposite do not represent any constituency, nor do their words count for anything. They know better than I do—it was approved at their own conference—that whatever they might say here, their policy is dictated by Transport House.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order!

Question put, "That the word 'or' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 313; Noes, 77.

Division No. 372.]
AYES.
[5.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)
Apsley, Lord


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Aske, Sir Robert William


Allen, Sir. J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Assheton, Ralph


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Fuller, Captain A. G.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Magnay, Thomas


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gibson, Charles Granville
Maitland, Adam


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Goff, Sir Park
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Goodman. Colonel Albert W.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Blindell, James
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)
Metter, Sir Richard James


Borodale, Viscount
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Boulton, W W.
Gretton. Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bowater, Cal. Sir T. Vansittart
Grigg, Sir Edward
Milne, Charles


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Grimston, R. V.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Bowyer. Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Malson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morgan, Robert H.


Brown. Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hales, Harold K.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Buchan, John
Hartland, George A.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Moss, Captain H. J.


Burghley, Lord
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Munro, Patrick


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Burnett, John George
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hepworth, Joseph
Peake, Osbert


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Pearson, William G.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Weller
Percy, Lord Eustace


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Petherick, M.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hope, Sydney (Cheater, Stalybridge)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hopkinson, Austin
Pike, Cecil F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Power, Sir John Cecil


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hornby, Frank
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Radford, E. A.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Christle, James Archibald
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M (Midlothian)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Colfox, Major William Philip
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ray, Sir William


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Iveagh, Countess of
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Conant, R. J. E.
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Cook, Thomas A.
Jamieson, Douglas
Rickards, George William


Cooke, Douglas
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Copeland, Ida
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Craven-Ellis, William
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Ross, Ronald D.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Kimball, Lawrence
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cross, R. H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Leckie, J. A
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Denman. Hon. R. D.
Lees-Jones, John
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Denville, Alfred
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Dickie, John P.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Doran, Edward
Levy, Thomas
Savery, Samuel Servington


Drewe, Cedric
Lewis, Oswald
Scone, Lord


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Liddall, Walter S.
Selley, Harry R.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunnl'ffe
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark. Bothwell)


Duggan, Hubert John
Liewellin. Major John J.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Duncan. James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Dunglass, Lord
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Eady, George H.
Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Eales, John Frederick
Loftus, Pierce C.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Slater, John


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Mabane, William
Smith. Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)


Elmley, Viscount
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Entwistle. Cyril Fullard
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Soper, Richard


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Evans. Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Fox, Sir Gifford
McKie, John Hamilton
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.




Spens, William Patrick
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswintord)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Stevenson, James
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Train, John
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Stones, James
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Storey, Samuel
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Storton, Hon. John J.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Strauss, Edward A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Winterton, At. Hon. Earl


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Wise, Alfred R.


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Withers, Sir John James


Sutcliffe, Harold
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Templeton, William P.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.



Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wayland, Sir William A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour
Sir George Penny and Major George Davies.


Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Weymouth, Viscount



Thompson, Sir Luke
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Groves, Thomas E.
Mender, Geoffrey le M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Bonfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James.


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Milner, Major James


Bernays, Robert
Harris, Sir Percy
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Healy, Cahir
Paling, Wilfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cape, Thomas
Janner, Barnett
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
John, William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Davies, Stephen Owen
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Dobbie, William
Lawson, John James
West, F. R.


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
White, Henry Graham


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams. Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)
McGovern, John



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McKeag, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. Walter Rea and Mr. Harcourt Johnstone.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mainwaring, William Henry

5.52 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, at the end, to insert:
but a speech or article in the Press advising members of His Majesty's Forces not to allow themselves to be used in an industrial dispute shall not be held to be an endeavour to seduce them from their allegiance.
The effect of the Amendment is to allow the ordinary citizen during the time of a trade dispute to appeal to the members of His Majesty's Forces not to take part in the shooting or the threat to shoot the persons engaged in the dispute. On the last Amendment one or two speakers raised the question of industrial disputes. On this matter we believe that a soldier when he joins the Army may be faced with a twofold allegiance. On the one hand he may have an allegiance to those who in every day parlance are called his superiors, to the Government of the day or to the Crown. But we argue that at the same time the soldier, who is usually drawn from the
ranks of the working-class population, has an allegiance quite as great as, and even greater, to the working-class people and his own folk than he may have to the Crown or to the Government of the day.
I do not know whether I shall be in order in arguing this point, but I want to state what I conceive to be the relationship between the Army and the general pouplation. In this matter one ought to be candid and face up to the composition of the Army. It would be out of order to argue the whole question of conscription or non-conscription in this country, but it has some bearing on the Amendment. In this country we have not a conscript Army in the popular sense, but in my view we have amongst certain sections of the population a form of conscription as formidable as conscription in other countries. The overwhelming mass of the Army, the rank and file, the ordinary members of the
Army who have not reached the officer class, are drawn from the ranks of the poorest of the poor. I stood the other day in Bath Street in the city of Glasgow where there is a great recruiting office. I watched recruits going in and coming out, and every one that I saw enter to join the Army bore the hall-mark of what might be termed the poorest section of the working classes. The tradesmen section of the working classes and those whom my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) describes as the "unto' guid" in the main do not send their sons into the Army. Sons of the comfortable section of the working classes never join. They do in war time, but not at a time like the present.
The average young man of 19 or 20 does not join the Army, in the main, because he likes it. He does not want to be drilled into killing some other person. I see the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) seated opposite. Take my division and take his. He knows both constituencies. His constituency is a comfortable place, comparatively. There are three recruits from my division to one from his. It is not because my constituents are more bloodthirsty than his; it is because the men are remorselessly driven by the cruelty of hunger and want to join the Army; they take this occupation rather than have none. They are driven in and it is not their choice. If these men were choosing a career in life they would not choose the Army. But such a man joins and when he joins he is no more free than the conscript abroad. He leaves his own folk and goes into the Army.
The Army is used for a variety of purposes, and those who are in charge of it would never dream of denying that it has been used in times of trade disputes when trouble threatened to arise. The bulk of men who have been in the trade union and Labour movement for any great length of time can recall this use of the Army, when the troops have marched through village or town or city. There are those who will argue that on such occasions the Army is neutral, but my contention is that it is not neutral. I have never been engaged personally in a dispute in which the Army has been used except one. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs will recall the 40-hour strike in Glasgow. But from that
and from other disputes concerning other trades, I say that the moment an Army enters into a dispute, the moment the soldiers are marched into a town in which there is a dispute, the men are defeated. The men might be prepared to carry on the strike under other conditions, but the moment they see the Army introduced they realise that, just as war between the nations cannot be limited, neither can shooting once it starts in a civil dispute. Decent men as they are, they know that once the Army is used, it is not the strikers alone who will run the risk of being killed or maimed, but that most of the civil population will be drawn in also. Accordingly these men, being decent and kindly, hate to go ahead with their dispute when they know that innocent people may be involved.
The moment the Army enters an industrial dispute, it enters only on one side—unconsciously I admit, but only on the side of the employing class. Therefore, I say that as the rank and file of the Army are drawn from the poorest of the working class, we ought to be allowed in the case of a trade dispute to say to that rank and file, "This is a dispute in which the men are fighting for higher wages or shorter hours, or to retain the wages and the conditions which they now have." We ought to be allowed to go to the soldier brothers and the relatives of the men and women who are on strike and say to them, "We appeal to you not to use your guns in this dispute. We appeal to you because of class loyalty to stand by the common people." I think we can claim with reason that we ought to be allowed to do so. After all, these men are used against the strikers. Why should not the strikers or the men involved in a trade dispute have their right of appeal to the soldier as well? By this Amendment we say that the member of the working class who is outside the Army ought to be allowed to appeal by pamphlet and speech and through the Press to the member of the working class who is inside the Army, not to enter into a trade dispute, or, if he does so, to refuse to kill his fellows. I believe that greater even than loyalty to party or to a machine, or even to a country, is loyalty to the working class, and for that reason I move the Amendment.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so for several reasons. To begin with, I know what it is to be in a dispute in which the military are introduced. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has referred to the 40-hour strike in 1919 when we on the Clyde tried to give a lead to the country and to show that the way out of the difficulty which was facing us at that time, just as it is presenting itself to civilisation to-day, was to share out the available work. We asked the Government of the day to institute a 40-hour week. That was the crime which we committed, and for the part which I played on that occasion I was well-nigh killed. I have on my forehead the mark of a police baton that I shall carry to my grave. Finally, the military were brought in, and at all the convenient corners in Glasgow machine guns were placed. The Government of the day believed that we had Glasgow all laid out with barricades ready for revolution. It was just a lot of nonsense. In the same way the Government to-day are a wee bit panicky. There is too much of the old women, too much of the duchesses about the individuals who are in control now, just as there was about those who were in control then. They conjured up nightmares in their minds. If the Government of to-day would attend to their business here instead of attending to the duchesses we would get on far better, and these difficulties would not arise.
I can remember when a much revered and respected Member of this House who is now no more, was Home Secretary—a great Liberal—and it was a blot on his escutcheon that could never be erased and one thing that he was ashamed of, and one thing that he denied when I impeached him as the author of it, that he introduced the military in a trade dispute. The late Mr. Asquith, as he then was, when Home Secretary, ordered the soldiers to fire on the miners at Featherstone. There was no more kindly disposed man, and no bigger man ever trod the Floor of this House than Mr. Asquith. He was big in every sense of the term, and he was the last who would ask any man to shoot down another man, but yet he acted in that way because it was the law, just the same as the responsible Secretary of State at the
moment, no matter how humanitarian he may be, has to carry out the law and has to take life if necessary. He has to hang a man if that man has been convicted as a murderer, whether he likes doing so or not. This Amendment is designed to save that situation. We get the name of being wild men from the Clyde, but once again we are stepping into the breach and showing the Government a way out of the awful position in which they will be placed in the event of an industrial dispute arising in this country and soldiers being brought in to shoot down the strikers.
As has been pointed out, the soldiers are almost invariably young men drawn from the ranks of the working class and unless the Government accept this Amendment it means that under the Bill —although it was the case before the Bill was introduced—the Government of the day have the power to call upon these young soldiers to shoot down their own fathers or brothers. That is what it means. We believe that it is a crime against nature, the most heinous crime possible that a son should be asked to shoot his own father or a brother asked to shoot his own brother, with whom he has no quarrel, in regard to whom he has no anger, no passion and no hatred. In all probability in these disputes the soldier believes that the workers are right. As one who was in the heart of the situation which arose in 1919 in Glasgow I would utter this word of warning to the Government. They will have to be very careful about this matter, because there is a danger that the soldiers might refuse to act, and that would be the end of the present system. It is your last resource to drive the workers into submission.
Think of what it means to the people concerned. Here is the situation as I see it. You have workers who are unarmed and peace-loving, but their conditions are of such a character that they are forced to go on strike. I know what it is to go on strike, not as a trade union leader, but as a striker with a wife and family dependent on me, and I want to tell the House that the workers do not go on strike lightly. Trade union leaders do not want strikes because they want to safeguard the finances and the funds of their organisations, but the workers themselves have a far greater incentive not to go on strike than the trade union
leaders. The worker who goes on strike is giving up all he has, for the average member of the working class in this country has scarcely a fortnight between himself and starvation. It is no light matter, therefore. You would think, to hear Members of this House when a matter like this is under discussion, that it was a light matter for men to go on strike and that we should use the uttermost powers of the Crown to crush them into submission, not to crush Germans or Russians, but our own kith and kin, and use the Army to do it.
I will issue another word of warning to the Government. At the moment they are finding great difficulty in getting men to join the Army. If the Government create this atmosphere in the ranks of the very class from which they require to recruit their Army, that they may be used to shoot down their fathers and mothers and sisters and brothers, the Government will have greater difficulty than ever in getting them to enlist in the Army. We desire, through this Amendment, to save a situation like that from arising. We want that when there is an industrial dispute in progress the Government shall not use the troops against the workers. I can well remember when the Labour Party Conference in 1916 decided to appoint a committee to inquire into the deportation of the men on the Clyde, and I can remember the summing-pp of that report, in which it said that Colonel Levita, the chief of the Scots Command, might just as readily have arrested Sir William Beardmore, as he was then, now Lord Invernairn, Admiral Adair, or the general manager, Mr. Chisholm, as they did Mr. David Kirkwood and his colleagues. But the runny thing about it is that that never happens. The soldiers never shoot down the employers—in no country, in no dispute, at no period of history. They are always used against the working class, and it, is because of that bitter experience and in order to safeguard the workers in the first instance and to save this Government from such a, situation arising that I support this Amendment.
Even to-day on every side Members have been paying tribute to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, saying what fine men they are, how amiable, how anxious to meet all our demands and to go out of their way to explain every point so nicely and so suavely. It is easy to be suave when you are well fed and
well clad, but it is a different type that is going to be shot down, a different type that is going to do the shooting, and I second this Amendment in the hope that the Government will see their way—it should be easy for them to-clay—to grant us our request. There is no excitement. There are no industrial disputes. There is peace of the type that Bob Smillie said meant death to the working class; and that is what is abroad to-day. There is no sign of industrial disputes. The workers to-day are crushed as they never were in my time. Men are terrified at the moment. Even on the Clyde we have difficulty in getting men to act as shop stewards, for fear that they may be victimised and lose their jobs. These are the conditions that are prevalent throughout the length and breadth of Britain to-day, as never before, particularly in the shipbuilding and engineering industries, and the same holds good in the mining industry. Men in the mining industry to-day are being forced to violate all the laws and rules of procedure laid down by Acts of Parliament, forced to work overtime. The management knows that they are being forced to work overtime, time and time again. That hellish disaster of which we have just heard is the result of men being forced to work overtime.

HON. MEMBERS: Order !

Mr. KIRKWOOD: All those things—

Mr. MACQUISTEN: On a point of Order. That case is being tried in court to-day, and it is not right for the hon. Member to anticipate the judgment.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understood that the cause of the particular disaster to which the hon. Member referred was sub judire, and he has no right to make accusations as to anything being responsible for it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: If I have said anything that, is out of order, and you think so, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it unreservedly, because I have no desire to get up against the House here, and it is quite unnecessary for me to exaggerate. It is quite impossible, the conditions are so bad. By that I mean that the spirit of the men is crushed to such an extent that they are doing things to-day that they would not have done when I was in the workshops. They would have rebelled. Members of this House know nothing about that, and I do not expect
them to understand it, but I am trying to do my best to bring before the House the actual situation in our own country, that the men whom they fear are going to be in revolt, and they may require the soldiers to drive them back to their work against their will. There is no fear of that arising in the immediate future—none whatever—so that we have no compunction of conscience in putting this Amendment before the House and asking the House to accept it. Why should you wish to put our soldiers, who are in the first instance brought into the Army to defend our native land against all comers, into such a position? They are not brought into the Army to shoot down the members of their own families, and it is to save a situation like that arising that I have much pleasure in seconding the Amendment.

6.27 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: A good deal of the argument to which we have listened has been directed, as I have followed it, to the question as to whether in certain circumstances the armed Forces of the Crown should or should not be used. Now that question is a question for the Government of the day, and arguments as to how the armed Forces of the Crown should be used and when they should be used should be addressed, in our opinion, to the Government of the day, and results should not be sought to be achieved by individual appeals to subordinate soldiers. I might say at the outset that we are unable to accept the Amendment, but I would like to criticise its language. The Amendment refers to forces being used in an industrial dispute. Now, so far as the present Government are concerned, and, so far as I know, any other Government that we have had in this country in the past, it has never been the policy or the practice to use the Army in an industrial dispute.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: They have done it.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: An industrial dispute may lead to civil disturbance, and it may lead to such apprehensions, without actual life or property having been lost or endangered, that the Government of the day, rightly or wrongly for the purposes of my argument, deem it necessary, in order to safeguard and protect the community, that the
armed Forces of the Crown should be at the place where this civil disturbance has arisen; but from the point of view of the question which I am discussing now, it seems to me quite irrelevant whether the civil disturbance, the threat to life or property, has arisen from an industrial dispute, or from some political animosity, or from meetings of hostile parties in juxtaposition to each other, or whether it has arisen, as it might have, from some other cause, such as a football match or something of that kind. From the point of the view of the use of the armed Forces of the Crown, the source from which the threat of civil disturbance has arisen is, in my opinion, quite irrelevant. Therefore, taking the words of the Amendment—
advising members of His Majesty's Forces not to allow themselves to be used in an industrial dispute "—
as far as we are concerned, the armed Forces of the Crown will never be used on the side of employers in an industrial dispute, or on the side of strikers or, on anybody's side in any dispute except for the protection of the community and the enforcement of law and order. I am not sure whether hon. Gentlemen opposite may not take a rather different view. Sir Charles Trevelyan was reported in the newspapers the other day as saying that, in his opinion, the working-class must be conscious that they could use the police and the military for the making of great economic changes. That is not our view of the function of the police and the military, and if this Amendment were to be accepted I think we ought to write in after "an industrial dispute" the words "or to make great economic changes," because that would be equally outside their proper function.
There may, of course, be differences of opinion as to the circumstances in which it is right to call out the armed Forces of the Crown in the event of civil disturbances and riots at home. I do not fancy that anybody, even my hon. Friends below the Gangway if they were sitting here, would tie their hands to such an extent as to say that never in any circumstances, however many innocent lives were lost, would they ever rely upon the armed Forces of the Crown to quell civil disturbance arising out of an industrial dispute or any other cause. If the civil disturbance arose out of a Fascist counter-revolution, I think there
would be no doubt what their course of action would be.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Solicitor-General aware that when a disturbance arising from an industrial dispute occurs, the Government of the day do not wait until there is bloodshed before they bring out the troops to defend private property? Do they not bring out troops before there is semblance of life being taken? There was an occasion in Glasgow where they brought out the troops when they were afraid there would be some windows broken.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Gentleman, I gather, would wait until somebody was killed before he took necessary measures to protect life and property. That is not our policy. People's property, lives and security, and their freedom from apprehension of riots are the proper subject matters to consider as to the circumstances in which to call out the military for the protection of the community. There is the very elaborate procedure of reading the Riot Act and so on in order to see that improper and aggressive use is not made of the Forces of the Crown in dealing with these matters.
I will take up the argument I was making before I was interrupted. There may be differences of opinion as to the general circumstances and the particular circumstances in which armed Forces of the Crown may be used. These are perfectly proper differences. Hon. Members in opposition could press the Government of the day according to their principles, which doubtless they would put into force if they sat on this bench. Let those principles be addressed to the Government, but in the name of common decency do not let us go to a young private soldier and ask him to break the obligation which he swore to undertake and to tell him how and when the military Forces should be used. That is a matter for debate between Governments and their opponents, and the arguments should be addressed to the Governments responsible for these actions. For these reasons it would be, in our opinion, entirely wrong to exempt from the provisions of this Bill articles or speeches inciting soldiers not to obey their lawful orders in any circumstances, and the fact that the Government of the day may have
called upon the military in order to protect the community in a case of civil disturbance arising out of an industrial dispute, even assuming the Government of the day may have been wrong, would be no argument in favour of giving a licence to anyone to try to persuade soldiers to disobey their lawful orders and to become subject to the heavy penalties that disobedience would entail.

6.39 pin.

Mr. LANSBURY: I should not have risen to take part in any of these discussions on the Report stage except for the fact that this is an important question and I feel that I must make some remarks about it. This is not a new subject of discussion in the House, and the position of the Labour party in regard to the use of troops in trade disputes has been put on record many times. If the Prime Minister were here I think I should be able to enlist him on my side on that statement. Again and again when the Army Annual Act has been under discussion we have put down Amendments in order to ensure that troops should not be used in trade disputes. When the Solicitor-General says that there may be occasions when troops are necessary in order to stop riots and so on in connection with disputes, I recall that as long ago as the years between 1886 and 1892 the Liberal party led by Mr. Gladstone took the line that the use of troops to preserve law and order in Ireland was unwarranted. They were charged—there was the instance of Mitchelstown—in exactly the same way as we are being charged, with encouraging troops to disobey their orders. Mr. Gladstone's answer always was that there were two ways of dealing with the sort of difficulty that prevailed in Ireland. One was that adopted by the Government of the day, and the other was that which he and his party wished to carry through, namely, the removal of the causes which produced the disorder.
That is exactly our position. There may be some disagreement perhaps among us as to whether we should carry that through by going to the individual soldier and asking him to disobey, or whether we should try by legislation such as this Amendment proposes, and not put him in that position. The Solicitor-General must have been here during some of the Debates on the Army
Annual Act and must have heard the arguments that were put forward again and again. I think the Amendment does, to some extent, carry out the proposal that we want to see adopted. I know that it says that if a man prints something or goes to a private soldier and says to him, "You ought not to fire when you are told," that shall not be illegal. The Amendment is the best thing that we can get on the Paper in regard to this Bill. But the principle behind it is that the troops should not be used in an industrial dispute. That is the real issue before the House this evening.
I do not know whether the House realises that the position of a, private soldier is entirely different from that of an officer. A Labour or Socialist Government may be in power, and may bring forward legislation about which certain people in the country may go on strike. That is a conceivable proposition. Officers may sympathise with those who oppose the Socialist legislation. They have the right to resign their commissions. The Attorney-General shakes his head. I can produce documentary evidence to show that during the occupation of Archangel a certain officer, Lieut.-Colonel Sherwood Kelly, resigned his commission because he considered the policy of His Majesty's Government was an outrage, and that the troops were being asked to do something which they ought not to do. I myself published in the "Daily Herald" the whole of his correspondence with the Government of the day. He just went on with his decision. I undertake to say that if the men had done that they would have been shot. Therefore, I ask the House to remember, in connection with this matter, that an officer can 'resign his commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO !"] Officers have the right to resign their commissions.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL.: I do not think it is desirable that inaccurate statements should go forth. It was decided many years ago—I forget the name of the case, except that it was the case of somebody against Churchill—that an officer has a perfect right to tender his resignation, but has no right to demand that his resignation should be accepted.

Mr. LANSBURY: That does not do at all. Unless the Attorney-General produces evidence that what I have said is untrue I shall not accept that statement. Let the Attorney-General listen for a, moment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will send for my authority.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not want your authority. I have made a statement of fact, and nothing that the Attorney-General can produce can outweigh that statement of fact.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me? The last thing in the world that I should do would be to doubt a, statement of fact he has made. Do not let me be supposed to be doubting his words. I am not contradicting the statement he made about the officer at Archangel, but only doubting his statement of the law, and I am quite prepared to produce the authority of the High Court in support of my statement.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not know anything about the High Court. An officer has the right to tender his resignation, and in 999 cases out of 1,000 it is accepted.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Because they would never trust him.

Mr. LANSBURY: I tell the Attorney-General once more than Lieut.-Colonel Sherwood Kelly threw up his commission, and not only did he do that but came to this country and took part in public agitation against the Government of the day, and he was not court-martialled, though I am certain that if any private soldier had done that he would have been court-martialled, and, as it was in face of the enemy, would have been shot. [Interruption.] I am certain he would. The hon. Member for South Islington (Mr. Howard) knows everything, but he does not know that men were shot for much less crimes—military crimes—than that. The point I am making is that an officer does have a right, as the Attorney-General admits, to tender his resignation; and I go further, and say that in 999 cases out of 1,000 his resignation is accepted. I know that if an officer resigned because the duty given to him was distasteful to him his resignation would be accepted, because the Govern-
ment would know that he could not carry out his duty in a wholehearted manner.
But there is something more. Last night the Attorney-General rather brushed OD one side the Curragh incident. There, again, generals and colonels and majors and lieutenants definitely sent a "round robin" to their commanding officer—this is all public property—saying they would not, under certain conditions, carry out the lawful orders of the Government of the day. Not a single one of those men was ever awarded punishment, and they all remained quite honoured men in the British Army. I do not myself believe in this doctrine about the sacredness of men's oaths. It is a choice. Men of all sorts break them when it suits them in these days. The Curragh officers had sworn to uphold the Constitution of this country. Certainly they had. What do they enlist for? Have they got a different oath from that of the private soldiers? If the officer is not under the same obligation to obey the orders of the Government of the day that a private soldier is, it makes our case infinitely stronger. I always understood that an officer led his men, and I should think that he led them in loyalty to the Constitution of the country which they are enlisted to serve. But the point is that in the case of labour disputes, no one can deny that, whenever the Government interfere, they interfere on the side of the employers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] They cannot do anything else, because it is only when men are driven to desperation that violence is likely to take place. Only when men are on the point of seeing their wives and children starving do they break loose, and then the Government interfere to preserve order, which in effect means that they are helping the employers to crush the workers. I am not saying that the Government must not preserve order. I agree with what the Solicitor-General says. Any Government, Communist, Socialist, Labour, or whatever they are, will preserve order. But if we allow conditions to grow up which force the people into violence, then we—those like myself and others—ought to take our stand in saying that the right thing to do is to remove the causes which drive people to such extremes.
That is the position we take up all the time in relation to this matter, and it is the position which the Labour party, when
led by the Prime Minister, always took up—that is, that troops ought not to be used in this fashion. Very often when troops are brought in their very presence is provocative. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) is not here, but when he was, I think, Home Secretary, and there was a big railway dispute to take place, Victoria Park, indeed all the parks, were packed with soldiers. There was no earthly chance of any disorder, nobody imagined for a moment that there would be any disorder, but he made up his mind there would be disorder, and if those troops had stood where they were much longer there probably would have been disorder, because of their very presence there. The same thing happened during the General Strike. East London was packed full of soldiers—packed full of soldiers.

Mr. HOWARD: rose—

Mr. LANSBURY: I will give way to anyone but the hon. Member, because he interrupts everybody, and not once, but many times. He has had his chance to speak once to-day, and he might allow other people an opportunity.

Mr. HOWARD: You are very provocative.

Mr. LANSBURY: Why should I not be? I said East London was packed full of soldiers, though there never was, from the first hour to the last, any chance of disorder.

Mr. HOWARD: That is untrue.

Mr. LANSBURY: Whether it is untrue or not, I am saying that the great mass of the people of East London were peaceable and quiet and orderly. There were a few people who one day set light to a motor car. It was only a lark, just a joke. The police authorities treated it as a joke. There was no disorder about it at all. The strikers helped to put it out. There was not the least need to bring down the regiments of soldiers who were brought there. But I conclude as I started—in this business of strikes and lockouts and the employment of troops we ought not to approach the consideration of a labour dispute, or any other dispute, from the point of view of having to put down violence. The one thing we ought to do, and we ought to get the machinery to do it, is to see that when there is a dispute the workers shall not
be starved into submission. That is the first thing; and the second thing is that we should get the dispute settled at the earliest possible moment. I am one of those who think that while capitalism lasts we shall continue to have these disputes; but I cannot discuss that to-night. The only thing I want to emphasise is that the workers, as a rule, taking them broad and large, are the most orderly and peace-loving in the whole world, and the only time they are driven to extremes is when they are driven there by starvation; and instead of the House making provision so that they may be dealt with by soldiers it ought to be making provision whereby they shall not be driven into submission in that kind of way.

6.57 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sure the whole House was delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in such vigour again. The hon. Member for South Islington (Mr. T. Howard) seemed to complain that the right hon. Gentleman was provocative, but if I may say so with respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think any of us would ever complain of the right hon. Gentleman being provocative, because we know that he feels very deeply on these matters. But I should like to try to reduce this question to limits which we should all recognise. First of all let me say a word about the point of law which the right hon. Gentleman raised. He said he knew nothing about the High Court. I am sure he did not mean to say that he cared nothing.

Mr. LANSBURY: I have had to care. They sent me to prison.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is another story. The position surely is what I stated it to be. I now have the judgment in the case. It is the judgment of three very distinguished judges—the Master of the Rolls, Lord Esher, Lord Justice Fry, and Lord Justice Lopes to the effect that an officer certainly has not the right to do what the plaintiff did in this case, that is, obtain leave of absence when he had made up his mind to go altogether; and, as Lord Esher said, he was a deserter unless he had a right to resign, and if he had no right to resign—

Mr. LANSBURY: I understand that is a case where an officer absented himself and was taken to the court.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, not quite.

Mr. LANSBURY: If there be something more I will make my interruption later. The statement I made was quite clear—that an officer had the right to resign his commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "No") Well, I have already given the case of Sherwood Kelly, who came home from Archangel and took part in a campaign against the Government, after he had resigned his commission, and on Third Reading I will produce documentary evidence to prove it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: All I wanted to point out was that it was not a question of this officer being taken to the court and prosecuted as a deserter. He claimed that he had 'a. right to resign and should not be treated as a deserter. The Court of Appeal decided that an officer has not the right to demand that his resignation be accepted.

Mr. LAWSON: In that case had the officer actually sent in his resignation before absenting
himself?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: May I commend this case to the study of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman wanted to know whether the officer had actually resigned before he absented himself. He had been offered an appointment in China and applied to be released on half-pay. The request was refused. The officer then asked that his resignation be accepted at once and after that absented himself. After that he claimed damages.

Mr. LANSBURY: Did the authorities prosecute him or did he prosecute them?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Neither, strictly speaking. He was claiming damages in a civil action on the ground that his resignation should have been accepted. I do not want to engage iu a legal wrangle about this point. I do think that, as the right hon. Gentleman has made statements with his great authority, it is undesirable that it should go abroad that an officer has the right to demand that his resignation be accepted. Let me say, frankly, that I am sorry if there has been a misunderstanding. In
ordinary circumstances of peace, if an officer sent in his resignation, I have no doubt that in 99 cases out of a 100 it would be accepted. Even in circumstances of war and disorder, there should be little question of his demanding it, for obviously after resigning he would not be a very useful servant. Precisely the same may apply to a soldier. If the right hon. Gentleman pursues his inquiries, he will see what happened to the officer at Archangel. I cannot say more, because I have not the facts in front of me. He will find that the whole story has not been told; a little investigation may add another chapter to his story. More than once reference has been made to the possibility of troops being told to shoot or officers thinking they may have to shoot. Really we are in an almost unreal atmosphere. There have been some occasions in the past when that has unhappily happened. I will not say that it is inconceivable that such circumstances might not arise, but the civil population of this country is so peaceful even in times of industrial disturbance that it is unlikely. In that, we are more happily placed than other countries. That observation of law and order has preserved us from many perils.
In times of disorder we may have demands that the military must be ready to aid the civil power if an emergency should arise. The right hon. Gentleman said that on many occasions he and his party have tried to get the law amended so that they shall not be called out in readiness to help the civil power. That is a perfectly legitimate way of altering the law, and saying by Parliament that troops shall not be available to help the civil power. It is a different thing to legalise the act of a person who tries in advance of any change in the law to tell a soldier that he must not do what is his duty. It is the old distinction between a man who owes a duty to the State and a breach of the law. One is perfectly legitimate and the other improper. That is the difference between us. We are not trying to alter the law as regards the Government. That is not the question. The law says that the Army and Navy must be used and be ready to help the civil power if unfortunately an emergency should arise. That being the law, the question is whether it can be tolerated that an individual citizen should encourage a soldier or
sailor to disobey his duty. The right hon. Gentleman's eloquence was not, I say it with great respect, quite relevant, and I hope that the House will not be misled by it.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: It seems to me that the Amendment itself, and still more the speakers in support of it, introduce two different things. They confuse the altering of the law and the claim to break the existing law. So far as the claim to advocate an alteration of the law is concerned, this Bill is not affected. So far as the claim to advocate the breaking of existing law is concerned, the Bill seeks to prevent it, while the Amendment seeks to make it more easy. We have heard a great deal this afternoon as to whether the armed Forces should be used in a case of industrial dispute. It has been suggested, I have no doubt sincerely, by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the leader of the Labour party in the House, that in fact the Army is only used on the side of the employing classes.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think we had better leave that subject, because it is not in the Amendment. It has been referred to I agree, but it is not referred to in the Amendment that is now before the House.

Mr. LEWIS: I was only endeavouring to reply. When you, Mr. Speaker, were not in the Chair, the hon. Member for Gorbals spoke on this subject.

Mr. SPEAKER: The statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman has already dealt with that. I think we had better leave that subject.

Mr. LEWIS: Very well, I will not deal with that point. It seems to me that it is abundantly evident that the only occasion on which the armed Forces of the Crown are asked to intervene in the case of an industrial dispute in this country is when affairs are taking such a turn that efforts are being made to coerce the Government by the withdrawal of supplies, and when there are fears of violence to persons or property. In any case, whether the hon. Member for Gorbals he right in his idea that the military should not be used in a case of an industrial dispute, or whether I am right in thinking that in the same circumstances they should be so used, does
not really affect the substance of the Amendment before us. The effect of the Amendment is to enable anyone who so desires by speech or writing to urge another man to break an oath which under existing laws he is required to take. I have no hesitation in saying that to my mind that is a mean proposal. It is a proposal that a man should urge another to commit a fault, and should be able to save his own skin. It does nothing to protect the man who listens or reads an article from the consequence of that advice. In these circumstances, I find it very hard to understand how hon. Members opposite can bring themselves to support so mean a proposition.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I desire to support the Amendment. I have listened to the case made out by the Solicitor-General and I have not heard any reasonable case made out against these words. He himself stated that the armed Forces of the Crown were never brought into an industrial dispute against strikers. He stated that they were brought in to protect private property or the community. That is largely a matter of opinion and argument. It may be stated that they are brought in with that object, or that they are brought in to coerce and frighten people on strike into surrendering to conditions laid down.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question which the hon. Member is now discussing is quite irrelevant to the Amendment. This is not the time to make alterations in that law. We must confine ourselves to the actual terms of the Amendment before the House.

Mr. McGOVERN: I am prepared to accept your rigid Ruling. I am attempting to answer the Solicitor-General, and I assume, if he advances an argument, I am entitled to 'counter with my own case. I was using that as an illustration to proceed further. I wanted to say, in connection with the reasons given by the Solicitor-General, that troops are brought in at these times, and we are asking for the right to appeal to these soldiers during this period. We want to present the case to them from the workers' point of view, to show to them reasons why the men are on strike, and the reasons why they should not carry out orders that are against the class to which they
belong. Surely we are entitled to show reasons why the troops should not be used in that industrial dispute. We claim the right to put a reasoned case to the soldiers why they should not allow themselves to be the instruments of a propertied class against workers who are engaged in an upheaval. We desire to appeal to the soldiers in that way. When an industrial dispute is taking place, newspapers which we may say are instruments of class propaganda are morning, noon and night putting the case of the employers in that dispute. We are surely entitled to counter the false propaganda of the "Daily Mail," the "Daily Express," and any other paper, by putting the workers' case to the soldiers and appealing to them not to shoot down fellow-men who are struggling for a certain standard of living. It has been argued that there ought to be some instrument for preventing trade disputes, but we are not discussing that. We are discussing the question of the Army being in the field during an industrial dispute, and whether we should be able to appeal to the Army in a reasonable way and ask them not to carry out orders which are designed to bolster up the interests of the employing class as against the working class who are on strike.
As a propertied Government, right hon. Gentlemen may be entitled to argue that no right should be allowed to representatives of the workers who are on strike to appeal to the soldiers not to shoot so that ample opportunity may be given to the soldier to understand the situation and to apply his judgment and reason as to whether he would allow himself to be used in that way. The Army has been brought in on a number of occasions in this country before any trouble has taken place. If you examine the history of trade disputes you will see that at a certain stage, when the workers in dispute were regarded by the ruling class as being in danger of carrying their dispute to a successful issue, the propertied Government have moved in troops, or the local authority which has an outlook largely representative of the employing class of the area have appealed for troops to be brought in to coerce and intimidate. The soldiers are brought in like dumb, driven cattle, not knowing the rights or wrongs of the dispute and the strikers are very often driven to take action because of the presence of
the troops in the field. We ought to have the liberty to appeal to the soldier.
Suppose that in an industrial dispute I went to soldiers and was able to say to them, either by the spoken or the written word: "Here are workers engaged in an industrial dispute because they are being asked to accept the standard of life of 30s. per week instead of their present standard of £2, and we feel that it is unjust that the authorities should be moving troops in for the purpose of coercing the strikers and driving them hack into industry, and the acceptance of slave conditions." That in my opinion is the reason why troops are used during industrial disputes. The soldiers largely belong to the workers. They are recruited generally from people living in the lowest depth of poverty, not because they had any desire to serve but because they were hungry and unemployed. They belong to the working-class, and orders are given to them by officers who belong to the propertied elements of the community and whose interests lie in defeating the aims and objects of the workers on strike. There is a free field of propaganda on the side of what may be termed Capitalism, and we claim an equal right with the officer class for the workers to be able to appeal from the non-propertied element and to state why the soldiers should not be used in that way.
I can understand the point of view of the Government, who see a danger in these proposals of undermining the loyalty and the prestige of the Army upon which they so largely depend for their security, privilege and wealth. They depend on maintaining a loyal and docile Army, which will never question the orders given by the officer class, just as is done in the Army, Navy or Air Force. There are elements even in the Army, Navy and Air Force who are thinking seriously as to whether they should be used in these disputes.
The Attorney-General has done exactly as he has done on every Amendment which has been before the House. He has put up a sort of dolly show of his own by propping up a case and knocking it down. He has never attempted to answer points which have been put by the opposition Members, but he has always brought forward a purely hypothetical case which suited him and which he had reasoned out perhaps by his own fireside, or before he went to sleep during
the night. He never attempts to destroy the case put up by hon. Members. I do not expect the Attorney-General to agree with me. If he did, I should need to examine the words and the arguments which I had used. Just as he is loyal to the propertied class which put him there, I am loyal to the common people who put me here. His arguments cannot be my arguments, his case cannot be my case, and his views cannot be my views. I ask, in this Amendment, the right of doing what is denied to us, but you can never take away the right of the intelligent, conscious and courageous people to go to the soldier and to say to him: "You are being used by the employing class to defend their interests against the interest of the workers, and you should not obey orders against the class to which you belong. It is in your interest that they should win in the dispute" Whether the proposal be accepted or not we believe in that appeal being made, either legally or illegally, in order to present the working-class case against the use of troops in industrial disputes.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: This Amendment need not necessarily go to a Division because that will be a waste of good time. If the speeches, with the exception of the last, had been based on the Amendment the position would not be so bad, because the Amendment has definite reference to the reproduction of a speech or an article in the Press. No one has yet emphasised the real significance of the Amendment. Everyone knows that the form of literature which is distributed regularly by subversive elements is in the form of newspapers. It is easy to have a double foolscap page printed on both sides and say: "Printed and published as a newspaper." Whether the newspaper is typed, or is printed by means of a linotype machine, every piece of literature from the Communist party or any other seditious organisation in the country or in any part of the world will, if this Amendment be accepted, be distributed in newspaper form and can be republished in a genuine legitimate newspaper as a quotation from another newspaper. Hon. Members opposite feel that they cannot get their speeches reported in the ordinary course of events, because of their seditious worthlessness to the papers from whom they solicit the advantage, but they can send in those speeches, or
the copies of a published newspaper, and pay for the insertion as an advertisement. The difficulty experienced by newspaper proprietors in not accepting advertisements is rather a big one. If the Amendment be sincere, why are the words "the report" of a speech and the words "the publication" of an article not included? It is because hon. Members know perfectly well that in the question of the use of the press in the general interests of the community, you must take into consideration the full requirements of that community. Whether it affects the use of troops in industrial disputes for the protection of public property or not, the press must, so far as possible, be immune from any action by this House and from any suggestion of responsibility for maliciously intending or attempting to seduce troops from their allegiance.
If this Amendment be passed, papers could publish an article consisting of the report of a speech from the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) to the effect that, if members of His Majesty's Forces were seen entering a pit during a. colliery dispute for the purpose of preventing the intimidation of safety workers engaged in keeping the pit in a condition of safety for the benefit of the miners in the future, efforts must be made to exert influence against them. If any hon. Member suggests that articles of that description should be published without any notice being taken of the interest of the community, he is giving very little credit to the intelligence of the people of the country. The same thing applies to the health of the people and to anything which affects the welfare of the women and children. During the last dispute I drove vehicle after vehicle containing thousands of loaves of bread into the coal areas in South Yorkshire, where bread was unobtainable. On two occasions when I got there the vans were emptied and the bread was distributed among the miners and their children who wanted it, but the rioters completely turned the vans over.
The hon. Gentleman and the Members with whom he works suggest that it should be allowable, by publication of the report of a speech in the Press or in a special newspaper, to urge the troops not to interfere with people who intended wilfully and maliciously to prevent services of that description from being
carried out during industrial disputes. Do they really contend that it is right to publish in newspapers material that would prevent troops from protecting the doctor in the course of his ordinary functions during a strike? I am convinced that the three hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would be the last people in the world to do anything to take away protection from essential services even during an industrial dispute of such a nature as has been mentioned in the House this afternoon, and if they will look again, before forcing the House to a Division on this matter, at the real significance and the underlying meaning of their Amendment, I feel sure they will justify their own honesty and sincerity in the cause of the workers by withdrawing the Amendment and saving the country the expense of a Division.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: Greatly as I dislike this Bill, and unnecessary as it seems to me to be, I cannot help saying that I feel considerably impressed by the case put forward by the Attorney-General tonight, because I believe that this Amendment, if carried, would strike at the whole basis of ordered liberty in this country. I quite agree that a radical alteration is required in the industrial system of this country, and that further rights ought to be given to the workers. There is no doubt that that should be done, and done in a drastic way, but the way to do it is, surely, not by mob rule, but by the voters of the country returning a Parliament and a Government which will pass the necessary Measures for that purpose. To proceed upon other lines might result in this situation: An industrial dispute would arise which unfortunately the police were unable to control. Is the doctrine to be that in those circumstances we are to allow the police to be overpowered, that the civil population are to take charge of the proceedings, and that the Forces of the Crown which are available are to take no part? I say that that is an absolutely revolutionary doctrine. In the meantime, until we have got these changes by legislation, we are bound to use all the forces at our disposal for the maintenance of order.
I quite agree that it is most undesirable that troops should ever be used in an industrial dispute, but it cannot be said that in no circumstances shall they be so used. May I use this illustration? It
may be, and I hope it will be, that some day not only the internal affairs of nations but the whole world will be controlled as regards order by the collective system through an international police force or something of the kind. Would it be tolerable in such circumstances that individuals should be permitted to go about the world agitating that the international police force ought not to carry out its duties, and trying to prevent it from doing so, and in that way allowing wars to break out in the world? I think that that is quite a fair analogy, and, as I believe that ordered liberty, based, in the ultimate resort, on power in the r:ight hands, is fundamental to the existence of our liberties, I cannot support the Amendment.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not want to prolong the discussion on this Amendment, which has been fairly full and reasonably close to the point. The one complaint that I would make very seriously, not merely about the discussion on this Amendment but about the whole proceedings since we came to the Report stage, is with regard to the continued absence of responsible Ministers of the Crown. I would like, before we conclude this stage, to see some evidence of the Prime Minister's interest in the Measure. I would like to see some evidence of the interest of the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House. I see an even greater significance in his absence than in that of the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister's habit to absent himself from the House of Commons, but it is the Lord President's practice to be present, and the fact that he has been absent during the discussion of this Measure is to me very significant indeed. But more important still is the fact that the Service Ministers also have remained conspicuous by their absence.
Why should the Law Officers of the Crown take the responsibility for dealing with this matter, which is only of secondary importance to them? Indeed, I gathered from the speech of the Attorney-General on the previous Amendment that it was only at the Committee stage that he began to consider the contents of the Bill, as regards the question of the use of the word "and" or "or" I understood him to say that he had not really given the matter any
consideration until we came to the Committee stage. I do not want to misrepresent him, but that was my impression. He said he had only given it serious consideration between the Committee stage and the Report stage, and he had only now arrived at something like a tentative view of the matter. If that be so, it reinforces my view that he is not primarily responsible for the introduction of the Measure, but that either the Admiralty, or the Air Force, or the War Office has the primary responsibility.
One hon. Member described our Amendment as mean, because we made other people hold the baby for our crimes. If that epithet be applicable to myself and my hon. Friends, it is equally applicable to the Service Ministers of the Government, who, having produced this baby, leave the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General to hold their baby. I can imagine no two better baby-holders in the whole Government, but it is not the game—it is not shouldering the responsibility that ought to be shouldered in another quarter. I do not like being called mean. The hon. Member accused us of meanness because he says we are trying to exempt ourselves from the responsibility of asking soldiers not to take part in industrial disputes. He says that we are not going to have any of the penalties for ourselves, but we are asking others to do something which will bring penalties upon them, and that is where the meanness lies. But is not he in very much the same position He is asking that the soldiers shall be called out in trade disputes, possibly to shoot down strikers, but he is not going to do that himself; he wants those fellows to go and do it for him. I am not driving that home, because I am sure he sees now that his argument against us does not apply.
As regards our object in bringing forward this Amendment, I have repeated again and again that this is an obnoxious Measure from every point of view. The Amendments that we have brought forward at this and previous stages are not in our view directed to making the Measure a good one; we think that it cannot be made a good Measure; but we believe that it can be made less obnoxious and less evil in its operation. Nearly every speaker has congratulated himself and this country on the fact that to a large extent we
have been free from the turmoil and cruelties and interferences with liberty that have characterised other countries. Why? Various reasons have been given, but one of the strongest reasons operating here is that the military power has always been kept in a subordinate position. The whole history of our country, dating right back to the struggles of this House for the maintenance of civil liberty, has been, not merely a fight against the King, but a fight against standing armies and their powers. The Army (Annual) Act, which we pass every year, is passed primarily for that reason, so that the Army should not begin to think itself a power beyond the State; and one of the reasons why up to now in this land we have escaped a whole lot of the troubles that have affected other lands—I do not say it is the only factor, or that it will always continue—has been that the Army in the main has been kept very strictly to its job—

Mr. HOWARD: And kept out of politics.

Mr. MAXTON: Not always, but to a very large extent. We did not bring it into politics. I agree that it has been kept to a large extent out of politics, but it has also been kept in a subordinate position, and has been kept mainly to what the men who take the oath of allegiance regard as their job. When a fellow joins the Army—my hon. Friends have said that in these days he usually joins it for a living—he takes an oath of allegiance, and, when he takes that oath of allegiance, he is thinking that he is giving a solemn promise that, if he is called upon, he will fight to defend his country against foreign invaders. That is the solemn obligation that he has taken upon himself. He hopes in his heart that he will never be called upon to fulfil it, but, when he takes the oath, he believes that he is swearing to defend his country against a foreign enemy. If he is called upon to go out and fight against his own sons and brothers, his father or other relations, who have a strong feeling of social discontent and are giving expression to it, he feels that he is being asked to do something which is going beyond the bond that he took on.
I was not surprised, of course, to hear the hon. Member for East Wolver-
hampton (Mr. Mander) defending the use of troops for the slaughter of British workers. It is not the first time that the hon. Member has intervened in a Debate with just the same point of view. He has always the most tender feelings towards Germans, Italians or the natives of India. These people may be allowed to create any turmoil they like, and it is always to be made a justiciable issue, but, if our own fellows are demanding a decent standard of life—

Mr. MANDER: The hon. Member is giving a fantastic version of the views that I expressed. I said that I was extremely anxious to see the conditions of the workers altered, not by mob rule, which would arise under his plan, but by the proper method of the ballot in returning a majority to this House. To suggest that I wanted to use the troops in a murderous way against the workers is quite untrue and really most offensive. I cannot think the hon. Member really meant that. If one had to choose between his method and mine, the condition of those who came under mob rule would certainly be much less happy than those for whom order was preserved.

Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Member repeats the offensive remark which made me speak rather hotly in answer to him. He talks about his system of world peace which is going to come at some time or other. His ideals are directed towards the most perfect end but our ideals are to be described by the phrase "mob rule."

Mr.MANDER: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps we had better return to the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. MANDER: May I say one word? I am certain that the hon. Member's ideals and objects are that he would desire to see complete order and the best possible arrangements made. I am merely suggesting that it might not work out in that way and that something of a quite different nature would arise, but the hon. Member's intentions, I am sure, are the very best.

Mr. MAXTON: I, of course, accept that explanation, and I can only make the retort courteous. I have no doubt the hon. Member's intentions are equally admirable. It is very far from our purpose
in putting forward this Amendment to be standing for what he calls "mob rule," but to maintain public peace and at the same time to give the workers of the country a decent opportunity to make a struggle for better conditions. We move

it, and we hope that the House will accept it.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 54; Noes, 287.

Division No. 373.]
AYES
[7.50 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Maxton, James


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Batey, Joseph
Healy, Cahir
Paling, Wilfred


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
John, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lanabury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dobbie, William
Leonard, William
West, F. R.


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wilmot, John


George. Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, Valentine L.



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. Buchanan and Mr. McGovern.


NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grigg, Sir Edward


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grimston, R. V.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Allen Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Conant, R. J. E.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cook, Thomas A.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cooke, Douglas
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Assheton, Ralph
Cooper, A. Duff
Hacking, Fit. Hon. Douglas H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Copeland, Ida
Hales, Harold K.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Craven-Ellis, William
Hanley, Dennis A.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hartland, George A.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bernays, Robert
Cross, R. H.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Crossley, A. C.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Birchalf, Major Sir John Dearman
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Blindell, James
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Borodale, Viscount
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hepworth, Joseph


Boulton, W. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Bowater, Cal. Sir T. Vansittart
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Denville, Alfred
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Staiybridge)


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Dickie, John P.
Hopkinson, Austin


Brass. Captain Sir William
Doran, Edward
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Broadbent, Colonel John
Draws, Cedric
Hornby, Frank


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Horsbr[...]gh, Florence


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Duckworth. George A. V.
Howard, Tom Forrest


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Duggan, Hubert John
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hudson, Capt. A. [...]. M. (Hackney, N.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Douglass, Lord
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Burghley, Lord
Eady, George H.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Eales, John Frederick
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Burnett, John George
Eastwood, John Francis
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Burton. Colonel Henry Walter
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Iveagh, Countess of


Cadogan. Hon. Edward
Elmley, Viscount
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Emmott. Charles E. G. C.
Jamieson, Douglas


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Caporn. Arthur Cecil
Fox, Sir Gifford
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Cassels, James Dale
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Kerr. Hamilton W.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Kimball, Lawrence


Ceyzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lamb. Sir Joseph Quinton


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Lees-Jones, John


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Goff, Sir Park
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Chapman. Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Levy, Thomas


Christle, James Archibald
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Lewis. Oswald


Clarry, Reginald George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Liddall, Walter S.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Petherick, M.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Liewellin, Major John J.
Pike, Cecil F.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Spens, William Patrick


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Radford, E. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Loftus, Pierce C.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Stevenson, James


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Stones, James


Mabane, William
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Stourton, Hon. John J.


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Strauss, Edward A.


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Strickland, Captain W. F.


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Sutcliffe, Harold


McKie, John Hamilton
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Taylor,Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Templeton, William P.


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Rickards, George William
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ross, Ronald D.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Train. John


Mayhew, Lieut.-Golonel John
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Milne, Charles
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Savery, Samuel Servington
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Morgan, Robert H.
Scone, Lord
Weymouth, Viscount


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Selley, Harry R.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Morrison, William Shephard
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Moss, Captain H. J.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Munro, Patrick
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Shute, Colonel J. J.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Slater, John
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Withers, Sir John James


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Orr Ewing, I. L.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Patrick, Colin M.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne, C.)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Pearson, William G.
Somervell, Sir Donald



Peat, Charles U.
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Penny, Sir George
Soper, Richard
Sir Victor Warrender and Lieut.- Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

CLAUSE 2.—(Provisions for the prevention and detection of offences under this Act.)

8.3 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out Subsection (1).
The Amendment is to leave out the whole of the Sub-section which makes the possession of documents in certain circumstances a criminal offence. We now come to the most controversial part of what remains of the Bill. As has been pointed out in speeches on the Floor of the House and Upstairs, and also outside the House, it is impossible to say what documents or books may or may not have this particular influence upon a soldier's mind. Books may be perfectly innocent in themselves, but excerpts taken in a certain way from those books and used in a certain way may have this particular effect upon the minds of the troops. I suggest—and I shall be corrected if I am wrong by the right hon.
and learned Gentleman—that the offence which it is here proposed to create is one which is either unique or very nearly unique in our criminal law. If I may take one analogy, there has been a good deal of discussion during the proceedings on the Bill about obscene publications, and the analogy of obscene publications has frequently been quoted. In the case of a man who possesses obscene publications, even if he possesses them with intent to publish, as is contemplated under this particular Sub-section, it is not an offence at the present time. That was very clearly laid down in the case of Dugdale against the King in which Mr. Justice Coleridge said:
The law will not take notice of the intent without an act. Possession is no such act.
In this case, possession is made such an act, and we are placing the man who comes within the scope of the Bill in a worse position than the man who happens to be possessed of obscene publications with intent to publish them. There are
very few cases in our existing law where possession unaccompanied by any overt act is in itself an offence. I admit that there are one or two instances, such as having in your possession counterfeit coin, knowing it to be counterfeit and with intent to trade. The same thing applies to forged bank notes and to the possession of the instruments of forgery. Being found in possession of housebreaking instruments without being able to give a reasonable explanation or without lawful excuse is also an offence, and there is an offence created by the Official Secrets Acts of 1911 and 1920, such as retaining official documents after you have been requested to redeliver them and retaining the possession of dies or seals or stamps used by Government Departments without the authority of those Departments.
Those are the existing cases where mere possession, unaccompanied by an overt act, at present constitutes a criminal offence, but I submit that they provide no parallel and no precedent for the offences which it is here proposed to create, because in each case there is a very strong presumption of fact that the possession is for an unlawful purpose. If I am found at night carrying a jemmy or some other house-breaking instrument, there is at any rate a presumption that I am going to use it for an unlawful purpose, but in this case there is no such presumption, because we are dealing with books and documents which in many cases may be used just as well for an innocent purpose as for an unlawful purpose. It is not necessary—and I ask the attention of the hon. Members to the actual words of this Sub-section—that the documents themselves should have the effect of seducing members of the Forces from their allegiance, or that they would be likely to have that effect. It is only necessary that copies of these documents would be likely to have that effect. I would call the attention of hon. Members to the distinction there made between the originals and the copies. I may have in my possession a book which, if it were shown to a soldier, would not in itself produce any particular effect upon his mind. But I might be able to cull certain paragraphs from it und to copy them out, and they might produce this particular effect, and, if the court who tried me decided that I owned that book with
intent to commit an offence under Clause 1, then I should be guilty of an offence.
I am going to suggest that there is no real parallel for this Sub-section in English law. The nearest parallel which I have been able to discover occurs not in the English criminal law, but in the Penal Code of Soviet Russia. I have here the Russian Penal Code, and Article 58, Sub-section (10) reads as follows:
Propaganda or agitation containing an appeal to overthrow, undermine or weaken the Soviet authority or to commit individual counter-revolutionary crimes … or the dissemination, preparation or possession of literature containing such matter, entails —deprivation of liberty for a period of not less than six months.
I am a little puzzled as to why we have this Soviet and Bolshevist legislation brought forward by the present Administration in this country. I can scarcely believe that either the right hon. and learned Gentleman or the hon. and learned Gentleman, as Law Officers of the Crown, would be responsible for anything of that kind, or even that the Service Departments would deliberately take their model from Soviet Russia. The only conclusion to which I can come is that we have to look higher still, and some of my hon. Friends above the Gangway have occasionally been unjust to the Prime Minister when they have suggested that he has forgotten all his early teaching and his old principles. I have here a quotation from a publication of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in 1919. These were the words he used in that year:
The Russian Revolution has been one of the greatest events in the history of the world, and the attacks that have been made upon it by frightened ruling classes and hostile capitalism should rally to its defence everyone who cares for political liberty and freedom of thought.
It is now possible to understand why it is alleged by certain of those who defend the Bill that it is really an enlargement of liberty. Certainly, I agree that it is an enlargement of political liberty and freedom judged by the standards of Soviet Russia. It is because I think that the majority of this House have a different standard that I ask them to exorcise these words to-day. May I remind hon. Members who served on the Committee of an Amendment which was moved upstairs, because I think the rejection of that Amendment throws some
light on the true nature of the Sub-section? Upstairs my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) moved an Amendment to add the words:
Provided that no person shall be guilty of an offence under this Sub-section, unless the court is satisfied that the said document was contrived, written, or printed for the purpose of seducing any member of His Majesty's Forces from his duty or allegiance to His Majesty.
That would have limited the scope of the Sub-section to publications produced for that particular purpose. If that Amendment had been accepted, it would have meant that, all the fears which have been expressed by a great many people in different walks of life outside this House about the effects of the Bill would have been, at any rate, modified. Probably their fears would have been shown to have been groundless, because ordinary books that any of us might have in our library would have been absolutely privileged from any prosecution under the Act if an Amendment of that kind had been accepted. But the Amendment was not accepted. It would have been possible, by putting in words of that kind, to confine the operation of this Sub-section to the sort of publications about which we have been told by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It would have been possible to deal with publications like "The Soldiers' Voice" and "The Red Signal," and any other propaganda or leaflet that might be used by the Third International or any other organisation in attempting to interfere with the loyalty of the troops. On the other hand, there can be no question at all of anybody's library being in danger as suggested by those who have spoken on this Bill. There has been a certain amount of discussion this afternoon as to what has been said by the law officers on former occasions as to the purposes of the Bill. I would remind hon. Members—for I do not think that these words have been actually quoted yet—of one particular passage in the speech of the Solicitor-General on the Second Reading of the Bill. He said:
Looked at broadly, this Bill is, in a sense, a procedure Bill, rather than a Bill in any way altering the substance of our law." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1934: col. 848, Vol. 288.]
With great respect to the Solicitor-General, who naturally speaks with such great authority on these matters, that
contention is entirely destroyed by the presence in the Bill of the Sub-section which we are now considering. We are here creating a new offence for which, I suggest quite seriously, it is very difficult to find an exact precedent, and an offence which, like other offences under the Bill, is extremely vague and difficult to define, and for these reasons I ask the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. REA: I beg to second the Amendment.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. LAWS0N: As my name is attached to the next Amendment on the Order Paper which also deals with the subject of possession, I think that it would be advisable if I dealt with the matter now, as it will perhaps give us an opportunity of voting formally on that Amendment later. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) has rendered the House a very useful service by mentioning the legal position generally with regard to possession. He has also rendered to the House a service by quoting to us the position in a country which, as far as its doctrines and ideas of liberty are concerned, is held in utter abhorence by many members of the Conservative party; that is, the Soviet Republic of Russia. The hon. Member gave us a. very valuable statement from the Prime Minister's speeches of the past with regard to that great country, Russia. I think we understand the wisdom of the statement of the Prime Minister the other day when we heard what his past thoughts were upon these matters. We understand that very wise saying of his: "We have gone on and on and up and up." So far as the Prime Minister is concerned he has gone forward considerably since the days when he expressed such views about Russia.
I was astonished at the statements of the Prime Minister upon this Bill, particularly this Clause, and upon matters of liberty in general. I began to wonder not only whether he had read the Bill but whether anyone had ever explained what its fundamental principles were. When the Prime Minister of this country is engaged in so many things certain details may slip past him, and one could not hold him accountable for not knowing those details, but one would have thought that he had some grip upon this question, to which he addressed himself this week.
He apparently was not aware that the Government have had to recognise that their original suggestions in regard to possession in the original Bill in 'the raw were indefensible. The sub-section which the Attorney-General asked the House to accept a few months ago is to-day in a very much modified form. It would surprise many hon. Members if they went back and looked at the original subsection. It said:
If any person without lawful excuse
That has been omitted. The words
with intent to commit or to aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence
were not in the original sub-section. To that extent the Sub-section has been modified drastically. I understand that the Attorney-General is to make further changes later with regard to search. Let the House note what the Attorney-General originally asked the country to do. He asked that the average person in this country who owns a library or pamphlet or anything of that description should be made subject to the law and subject to search and criminal penalties. When the fact dawned upon the people of this country there were many protests against it. It was not people engaged in political parties or propaganda who made the uproar of protest against the Clause in the raw. Many eminent men came into the field who could not be said to be in the active world of politics. Citizens who belong to no party as far as I can gather very seriously apprehended that the whole of the criminal law was to be set at nought.
The mass of protests and the meetings outside have had an effect upon the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General. I do not know whether they have had an effect upon the Prime Minister, because he seems to think that the original Bill was in the best interests of liberty. They have, however, had an effect on the Attorney-General and the Government generally, and therefore we have had modifications and safeguards. The Prime Minister apparently thinks that the safeguards are sufficient. I do not think that he understood what the essence of the thing was originally. The Government are claiming that persons shall be culpable and shall be charged and be searched if they are in possession of certain documents, pamphlets or books
with intent to commit, aid or abet a certain offence.
The question arises: who is to be the judge whether the person has these pamphlets, leaflets and books with intent to commit this crime. The original suggestion was that a magistrate should be the judge in the first instance whether a person was in possession of these documents and should have his house searched. The Attorney-General admitted that it might not be the right thing to allow one magistrate to decide the matter, and he agreed that there should be two magistrates. I understand that he is going to go even further than that.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: None of this is in Sub-section (1).

Mr. LAWSON: The search is connected with possession. Possession gives the right to some person to decide whether or not there shall be a search. The modifications and safeguards are in Subsection (1), and I anticipate that the Attorney-General will argue that the danger that was said to be in the Subsection in the past is not there now. The fact is that a person in possession of certain documents is still in danger of being searched and haled before the magistrate. As to the kind of documents, we say that the most unlikely documents will be regarded as proof justifying a search, and it will be said that the dissemination of them would be an offence under this Subsection. The Bill as originally laid before the House of Commons proved to be so dangerous and the moral and legal arguments so strong against it that most respectable citizens were roused into activity. The Government have put in certain safeguards, but it can still be shown that possession places the average citizen in danger of search and certain penalties, and we are therefore entitled to ask what is the use of proceeding with this Sub-section or with the Bill as a whole.
The Sub-section originally attacked a right of the citizen which hitherto has been held to be beyond the attack of any Government or person. In essence the Bill is still the same, and however the Government may attempt to introduce safeguards so long as they insist on a principle like this so long will it be quite impossible for the average citizen to be properly safeguarded. It touches also
matters of opinion and political views. The Attorney-General has been at great pains to obviate what he has accepted as a real danger, but I have never been able to understand why the Government should still insist on going forward with the Bill. It is said that persons have had in their possession certain newspapers and documents, and although it could not be proved that they had distributed them, yet it is suspected, or it is known by experience, that they have been distributed. On that point, we have never been able to get from the Attorney-General any real reason why this Subsection is forced upon the House at this time. We have had nobody from the Army, Navy or the Air Force to tell us what harm has been done. There has been no concrete evidence during the whole of our proceedings, in Committee or in the House of Commons, to justify this step. Why have not the representatives of the three Services whose names are on the back of the Bill, and who seem to be the persons really involved, been present during our proceedings?

Mr. EADY: It was not necessary.

Mr. LAWSON: As far as the hon Member is concerned, he does not think that the attendance of the Attorney-General is necessary. These representatives, however, are largely responsible for the Bill. As far as we know there is no evidence that this kind of literature has been distributed amongst the troops or that there has been any trouble amongst the troops. For reasons which are secret to these people, and upon evidence known only to them, we are asked to pass a Subsection which brings into question the loyalty and integrity of great masses of citizens, who are to be subjected to this law because someone in one of these three services has made up his mind that he wants a provision of this kind. Probably the gentleman responsible may be high in one of the services and is probably sitting warming his feet at the fireside to-night reading the "Times" report of yesterday's proceedings and laughing at the House of Commons. We shall vote against the Sub-section. I hope the Attorney-General will withdraw it, although I admit that if he did he would finish the Bill. Possession implies search, and search is what the Government want. The Government would be
wise to withdraw this provision and make an end of what has been proved to be indefensible in its original state acid which cannot be defended even with the safeguards which have been inserted.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: We have now reached what those eminent people to whom the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) referred just now regard as the core of corruption and the centre of putrefaction. It is quite true to say that this is the heart of the Bill and that if this Clause goes the whole Bill collapses. But it is indeed less objectionable than it was in its original form. My hon. Friends will recall that as it was originally drafted any citizen in possession of a Bible might be held to be open to prosecution [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] My hon. Friends say "No." Perhaps we may have explained to us why it is now hedged about with these extraordinary safeguards. Is it not a fact that the Government were shaken in their own minds and saw the dangers inherent in the Clause as originally drafted? Otherwise, there can be no reason for the singular safeguards now incorporated. I presume that the incorporating of these safeguards has resulted from the attacks that have been made inside this House and outside by persons of detachment and objectivity. So we may say, perhaps, if my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General will forgive the ironical observation, that his determined attack upon Christianity has now fallen to the ground.
At all events, I do say in all seriousness that it was a most lamentable thing that this Bill ever was brought before this House in its original form, and I sincerely hope that the Government will not damage its own prestige or try the patience of its own supporters by again doing that kind of thing. Now so many Amendments have been introduced and accepted that the present form of the Bill bears to its original form no closer resemblance than water does to whisky. Yet it is still entitled "The Incitement to Disaffection Bill." Indeed, the Attorney-General, whose love for this Bill is so famous,
moves in a mysterious way his wonders to perform.
Perhaps I may be allowed on this Clause to read at a little length what he said on the Second Reading of the Bill:
Someone may ask: How much of it is there? During the year 1932, there were 17 different subversive pamphlets. I do not mean 17 issues, but 17 different pamphlets of different titles—'The Soldier's Voice' is one, and "The Red Signal' another—containing such incitements as I have mentioned; and in that year there were 20 places of distribution. In 1933 there were A. different subversive pamphlets and 14 places of distribution. The pamphlets are distributed among members of His Majesty's Forces by methods such as I have described. They are thrown over the barrack railings, or pushed into the hands of soldiers or sailors in places of refreshment or in music halls; and it is estimated that in each of the last two years something like 50,000 copies of these subversive pamphlets have been produced and attempted to be distributed for circulation among members of His Majesty's Forces.
Perhaps I may read also, without destroying the meaning of what the right hon. Gentleman said, what immediately preceded that passage in his speech. He said:
I venture to think that these pieces of propaganda are an insult to members of His Majesty's Forces. The members of His Majesty's Forces in general are inspired by a passionate loyalty to their Service, they have a great respect for the traditions of their regiments or units, and they feel that duty is a real influence. They are gifted, as we know, with a great sense of humour; they are neither angels nor prigs; they have a great wealth of the English language with which to express their grievances.
Then the right hon. Gentleman repeated his remark about the insult:
I venture to think it is an insult that literature should be produced in large quantities which suggests that these are the authentic organs of opinion in the Army or the Navy, expressing in legitimate language the grievances of those who are bound by a duty or allegiance to the Crown."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1934; cols. 742–3, Vol. 288.]
It may be an insult, but it is certainly as great an insult to imagine that the Forces are unable to resist that kind of poison.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I would call the hon. Member's attention to the exact Amendment which is before the House.

Mr. ADAMS: Is the Amendment not dealing with Sub section (1) of the Clause, which relates to the possession of documents or copies of those documents?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Yes, and I have not yet heard anything said by the hon. Member about possession. He has talked about distribution.

Mr. ADAMS: I was under the impression that the Sub-section also dealt with the dissemination of copies.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I called the hon. Member's attention to the Amendment and I will content myself with asking him to confine himself to the actual terms of the Amendment.

Mr. ADAMS: I will try to make my remarks as relevant as possible. The Sub-section does refer to copies of literature which might be construed as being of a seditious character, and all the way through the discussion of the Bill we have heard the air made. thick with ugly words such as "incitement," "disaffection," "seduction," "sedition" and "disloyalty." The whole basis of the Attorney-General's case is that 50,000 copies of such propaganda were distributed in the course of a single year, or 50,000 in each of two years. It seems to be the Government's idea, basing itself upon this Sub-section of Clause 2, to try to purify the life of both civilians and military. But if the Government are bent upon this kind of great purge why, I wonder, have they not taken powers long since to deal with the "Daily Mail," because for months Lord Rothermere used his license to publish and serve up to the public, both military and civilian, the most seditious and poisonous kind of Fascist propaganda. It was not that 50,000 copies of the "Daily Mail" found their way on to the breakfast tables of both military and civilians, in a year, but that 30 times that number were circulated daily for months on end, until the public were nauseated and began to cease to buy that particular organ of the Press.

Mr. GLOSSOP: Is it not a fact that before people could obtain the "Daily Mail" they had to pay for it, whereas this literature was distributed free?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that that is clearly not applicable to the Amendment, and it emphasises what I said just now. I must again ask the hon. Member to be good enough to bear in mind the Amendment that is before the House. In my opinion he has hitherto been making his speech on the Bill, and that cannot be done on this Amendment.

Mr. ADAMS: I am extremely sorry. I seem, according Sir, to your ruling, to which of course I submit, to have strayed unwittingly into the paths of irrelevance.
I venture to revert to my original proposition, that this is the core and centre of the Bill. If this Clause goes, if this Subsection goes, the whole Bill collapses. In accordance with your ruling, I will abbreviate my concluding remarks, and again ask the Government not to jettison the prestige they have recently enjoyed nor to damage what I consider to be their remarkably illustrious domestic record which belongs to the last two or three years.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. LOFTUS: I would not have intervened but for certain remarks made by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). He represented that my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General amended this Clause in response to long-continued public clamour outside this House. My recollection is that as the Clause originally stood it did cause a certain amount of perturbation among some of the supporters of the Government and a few Members including myself promptly tabled Amendments to it. The object of the Amendment which I tabled was to ensure that any individual in this country could have in his possession any literature, no matter how seditious, provided that it was not clearly intended and proved to be intended for dissemination among the members of the armed Forces with the object of seducing them from their allegiance. The Clause read:
If any person has in his possession or under his control any document of such a nature that the dissemination of copies thereof among the members of His Majesty's Forces would constitute such an offence, he shall be guilty, etc.
My Amendment proposed to make it read as follows:
has in his possession or under his control any document copies of which have already been disseminated among members of His Majesty's Forces with the object of seducing them from their allegiance or which are proved to be intended for dissemination among members of His Majesty's Forces with the object of seducing them from their allegiance, he shall be guilty of an offence, etc.
That Amendment seemed to me to secure the object of those individuals to whom I have referred. Then I learned that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had tabled an Amendment now incorporated in the Bill inserting the words:
with intent to commit or to aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence.
He assured me, and I also got assurances from other hon. and learned Members, that that Amendment more than covered the intention expressed in the wording of my Amendment. I am not, unfortunately, a member of the legal profession but I believe it is clear that such is the case and that being so, then the Subsection as it now stands gives us this very essential right, that any individual can have in his possession any literature he likes, provided it is not proved that he has it in his possession, and he is not convicted before a jury of having it in his possession, with the object of seducing members of His Majesty's Forces from their allegiance.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: The speech of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) is interesting, but it does not convince me that the object which the hon. Member says he had in view when he tabled a certain Amendment has been met. His argument apparently is that one can have in his possession any kind of literature however seditious provided that it is not with intent to seduce members of His Majesty's Forces from their duty or allegiance. We have in this House a number of people who are not in favour of the present constitution of this country, and who are, indeed, openly and professedly, republicans. As a matter of fact I am a republican myself though I have no feeling with regard to his present Majesty or any other person who may be in that position. But I believe that the republican system is better than the system under which we live and I have said so on many occasions and in many places. It has been pointed out that existing republics such as the United States and France are suffering from certain disabilities which would not perhaps aid me in my advocacy of that belief, but I can only say that despite all those disabilities I am still a republican. There are many other people in this House to-day and there have been many people here in the past who have publicly expressed republican ideas, even though they claimed to be Conservatives.
If a man is a republican and has in his possession literature for the purposes of republican propaganda, will he be held to be attempting to seduce the troops
from allegiance to His Majesty if he gives them that literature? Are we to say that republican propaganda of any kind in this country in regard to the troops is an offence punishable at law? I would like the Attorney-General to answer that question. In my view the Bill as it now stands, even with all the Amendments which have been made in it, leaves it open to any Government at any time to prevent the distribution of literature of a republican nature among the troops. The words in the Bill are:
Endeavours to seduce any member of His Majesty's Forces from his duty or allegiance to His Majesty.
A republican, after all, cannot be a believer in the present constitutional system whoever the King may be. It appears to me that any attempt to advocate the theory of the republic as against the theory of our present Constitution would come within the terms of the Bill.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: What would. be the underlying idea of distributing such literature?

Mr. McENTEE: Hon. Members were complaining a few moments ago that the Army, the Navy and the Air Force were not represented on the Front Bench, but apparently there is at least one representative of those Forces on the Front Bench below the Gangway. Perhaps the hon. Members who were complaining will be satisfied with the intervention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I understood the hon. Member to be putting a question to the House generally as regards the distribution of literature advocating the institution of a republic to members of His Majesty's Forces. I am asking him what is the underlying idea of such propaganda among the members of the Forces.

Mr. McENTEE: I am sorry if the hon. and gallant Member does not understand the reason—

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I am asking the hon. Member what is his idea of it.

Mr. McENTEE: My idea or the idea of any other person in distributing propagandist literature, would be to convince the people to whom it was distributed that the system which it advocated was better than the system under which we live. That appears to me to be
the obvious reason. I was asking the Attorney-General—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Again I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself a little more closely to the Amendment. Sub-section (1) does not in any way give proper grounds for raising a discussion as to what is or is not seditious literature.

Mr. McENTEE: I submit that I have just quoted from Clause 1, to which reference is made in Sub-section (1) of Clause 2, to show that anybody who attempts to, seduce any member of His Majesty's Forces from his duty or allegiance—and I was relying on the words "or allegiance"—by distributing to the Forces any republican literature would be breaking the law if this became the law, and I was asking the Attorney-General to express an opinion on that point. My other objection is that I am still of the opinion that in certain circumstances I might be liable if I had in my possession, as I have at the present time, copies of many seditious pamphlets, not because I want to use them or to distribute them to the Forces—I do not. I used to collect them in the old anarchist days, and I still have them. I used to collect them in those days when the present Prime Minister was considered to be a seditious character, and I have many of his writings and speeches at home which would certainly be considered seditious if I were to attempt to copy and distribute them among the Forces to-day. That is the only reason why I keep them. I keep them as I might keep a museum if I were sufficiently rich to keep a museum, but the very possession of them might be used in certain circumstances as evidence against me, and I might very easily be punished because I possessed them.
May I submit a circumstance that might appeal to some hon. Members opposite? We have heard in this House a good deal about the General Strike, and I have heard remarks made outside that indicated very clearly the feelings of some hon. Members about those who took a leading part in the General Strike. I took a part—in a local sense a leading part not in a national sense—and if I were to judge my chances in conditions like that, if I were found in possession of these things and the troops were
brought in, as the Leader of the Opposition said they were in the East End of London and other places years ago, when industrial disputes were proceeding—if I were to judge my chances on being brought before some of the people who sit in this House to-day, such as the hon. Member opposite who is Parliamentary Secretary to the Postmaster-General, judging by his interjection to-day, I would not give much for my chance of getting off or even getting a fair trial if he happened to be sitting on the bench.

Sir EDWARD CAMPBELL: You would have been shot long ago.

Mr. McENTEE: That remark indicates the type of mind that you are up against and that the working classes generally are up against. Your only use for them is to use them as long as it suits you and to shoot them when you do not want to use them any more. In the circumstances of a General Strike or any big industrial dispute, if anyone were found, by prejudiced people such as the hon. Member opposite has just indicated himself to be, in possession of any of these things, copies of which, the Clause says, if distributed among the troops might have the effect stated in Clause 1—I say that I have plenty of literature in my possession now, copies of which, if they were distributed among the troops, could easily bring me within the law. The Clause which we are now discussing says, I know, that it has to be proved you have a certain intent in the use of these things, but intent with some of the people that some of us might be brought before in circumstances like that would be accepted without proof, as it has been in previous cases. In the case that gave rise to this Bill, when the present Law Officers, I presume it was, caused the arrest of certain people, the judge fortunately was more broad minded than they were, and the people arrested and charged were discharged, and it is because of that discharge that this Rill is being brought in.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is obvious that this discussion as to the conduct of any particular court in a matter of that kind has nothing to do with this Subsection, and I must ask the hon. Member really to keep in his mind the Amendment before the House, and to confine his remarks more strictly to it.

Mr. McENTEE: I have it in my mind very clearly, and I was going to indicate the circumstances in which it might be used in a manner different from what the Attorney-General leads us to believe, but I would like an answer to my question. In my view it would definitely prevent any propaganda being attempted among the troops that could be said to seduce them from their allegiance to His Majesty, if that propaganda were of a republican character.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: I want to ask the Attorney-General whether he has considered the possible effect of this Subsection on the freedom of the Press. We have never as yet had a censorship of political opinion in this country, and we have had a censorship of any kind only during war-time. Apart from that, we have long come to the opinion that it is a very good thing that new ideas shall be printed and circulated, and, generally speaking, we have given the Press quite a free hand. My fear is that under this Sub-section we may in effect get a rather subtle but none the less effective censorship of the Press. It is obvious that people who print pamphlets or newspapers or articles on questions like war and peace, and on the relationship of the civil population to the troops—printers and publishers of articles of that kind in an ordinary journalistic way—will have very grave doubts in their minds as to whether it is wise under this Sub-section to do so, or whether they can afford to run the risk of publishing anything at all which might possibly come under this Sub-section. I think that in itself is rather a serious matter. The objection to this Sub-section seems to me to be that hundreds of thousands of respectable citizens, anxious to change public opinion by constitutional efforts, would be liable, unwittingly and in all good faith, to have in their possession certain things which might be used to be circulated at some time or other among the troops; and although it may be said that you have to prove intent, I suggest that under certain circumstances it might not be very difficult to say that a man had an intention, in spite of the fact that he himself might proclaim his innocence.
One of the great things of which we are proud is the freedom of the Press and of the individual to express his
political opinions. We feel troubled about this particular Sub-section because, like many other people, we want to read all sides of questions and are prepared to read all kinds of literature, and, incidentally, literature on war and peace. This kind of literature has always been looked upon as the cream of literature and the sort which We can teach to our children. Under this Clause it may be possible for many of us to find ourselves in danger. I know it may be argued by the Attorney-General that all these fears are groundless and that there is no intention of putting us in danger in the way that we fear.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be quite satisfied that nothing of that kind will happen, but one never knows, and in times of public stress and excitement any man taking an unpopular side may find himself within the provisions of this Clause, and the mere fact that he is taking the unpopular side may weigh down the scales of justice against him. One remembers, for instance, how the Tolpuddle martyrs were transported under the terms of the old Mutiny Act. Was it intended that that Act should be used in such cases? When it was before this House, if anyone had suggested that these agricultural labourers could be transported under it the Law Officers of that time would have said, "Nothing of the sort, it is a most ridiculous thing to put up," and so on; yet, as a matter of fact, that Act was used against those unfortunate men. The judge said to them what a judge may say to some of us if in a few years time we are prosecuted under this Bill for having possession of certain documents: "It is true you did not intend to do anything, and I cannot see that you have really done very much, but it is necessary to make an example of you for the benefit of someone else." I am afraid that, in spite of all that may be said about this Clause, about its possible innocence and about the fact that malicious intent has to be shown, and although it has been altered considerably since the first draft of the Bill, it is still a most dangerous Clause.
We ought to be careful how far we curtail the liberty of the Press or the liberty of the subject. I have never been satisfied that this particular Clause is necessary. I made a speech on the Second Reading pointing out to the
learned Attorney-General that in my opinion the existing law provided all that was necessary to deal with everything contained in the Bill; in other words, that the Bill was entirely unnecessary. I am still in considerable doubt about what is at the back of the Clause. Is it intended to use it against the Pacifists and the Communists, or against certain organs of the Press having certain views, or is it to be used only in eases of people expressing certain political opinions, and not to be used in cases of people expressing other opinions? On all these ground, I register my protest against this Sub-section. I would it were possible that this Bill could be withdrawn altogether. I am satisfied that even the learned Attorney-General in his own mind cannot be happy about this Clause and the other Clauses of the Bill which rests on it. I wish it could be withdrawn, but, failing that, we can only register our protest by going into the Lobby against it. I am satisfied that public opinion outside will justify the protests we have made, and that we shall be able to justify them up to the hilt when we get the opportunity.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. EADY: I have refrained from taking part in this Debate, because I do not approve of too much repetition, but unfortunately I have to do the same as other members, and I have to repeat many things that have already been said. For 16 days in Committee we thrashed out every portion of this Bill. In that time many things were mentioned and repeated when there was no necessity. That length of time was taken because of the obstruction that was made with a view to blocking the Bill. Fortunately we have persevered, and we have eventually brought the Bill to the House for Third Reading. The result is that the Opposition have taken advantage of the position not only to distribute literature all over the country pointing out many things about the Bill that are not true; but practically to canvass the country pointing out—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not know whether the hon. Member imagines that we have got to the Third Reading?

Mr. EA DY: I meant, of course, the Report stage. The Opposition have taken
advantage of the position and have made a kind of publicity stunt of it for their views.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I want to call the hon. Member's attention to the fact, not only that we are not on Third Reading, but that being in the Report stage we are now engaged on one particular Amendment and that he must speak to that particular Amendment and to that alone.

Mr. EA DY: I bow to your Ruling, and will confine my remarks to the Amendment. If this Amendment were carried, it would alter the appearance of the Bill entirely. There is no necessity for it. The Clause itself provides for all that is necessary to prevent the distribution or the possession of this class of literature by any person who will use it for an ill purpose. I oppose the Amendment, and I am pleased I have had the opportunity of supporting the Government. If I have a complaint to make, it is that the Attorney-General has been a little too much on the lenient side. At the same time, if a little compromise will have the effect of soothing the opponents of the Measure I have great pleasure in supporting the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

9.15 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment spoke, if he will allow me to say so, with a brevity which did not at all interfere with the clarity of his argument or the accuracy of his information. Subsequent speakers, including the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams), seemed to find greater difficulty in addressing themselves to the point of the Amendment. Indeed, I seem to recognise a good deal of dissatisfaction with the course I took in Committee in trying to meet the objections of hon. Members opposite. I can imagine how they would have reproached me if they had been able to say that I had been obdurate and had refused to make any Amendments, and was hardhearted. Now their complaint is, and I can well understand it, that I have been so reasonable that they have very little of which to complain. Therefore, the greater part of the speeches from the benches opposite were directed against the Sub-section in its earlier form and not against it in its present form. The
hon. Member who moved the Amendment, if I understood him aright, seemed to suggest that this Sub-section would make the mere possession of documents an offence. Every now and then he guarded himself against giving that impression, but more than once he seemed to come back to it, and it is certainly the impression which the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) has given the House, and which I think the hon. Member for West Leeds has also given to the House.
Let me say as emphatically as I can that this Clause does not make, and never did make, even in its old form, the mere possession of documents an offence. I want to confine myself to the Clause in its present form. It begins by saying that a person must have the intention to commit, or to aid or abet or counsel the commission, of an offence under Clause 1. Therefore, one has to prove two things. First, to prove an intention to commit an offence under Clause 1, and, secondly, to prove possession. The proof of intention is a proof which the prosecution must undertake. It has sometimes been suggested that the character of a person charged will be proof of intention. Any lawyer will know that that is wrong. You might as well attempt to prove that a man who was charged with being drunk while in charge of a motor car on 1st November was guilty because he had been drunk on 1st October. His character and his antecedents would have nothing on earth to do with the charge, and could not be given in evidence. The prosecution will have to prove intention by giving evidence of some overt acts, as we lawyers say, in a phrase which I think is understood, and will have to undertake the onus, and discharge the onus before a magistrate or, if the person charged prefers it, before a jury, of showing that this intention exists.
Some people seem to find it difficult to understand the point about intention. It is very familiar to us in the law, and I think it is very familiar to everybody in ordinary life. Let me give a homely example. Suppose I was so fortunate as to be invited by the hon. Member to take part in a feast in the approaching Christmas season. I should feel no terrors if I saw him brandishing a carving knife on the other side of the table, because I should know that he was not
going to attack me, but something else. But supposing I met him, with wild eyes and uplifted hand, chasing me round the room with a carving knife, I should know perfectly well that he had another intention. Let me give another illustration, and engage in a personal reminiscence. A few weeks ago, in the holiday season, I had left my car in a garage in Carlisle. My train arrived in the middle of the night and I wanted my car, but I could not get it. I leaned against the door and it opened.

Mr. McGOVERN: Very well put.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The caretaker or the owner came down and said that I was guilty of housebreaking. I said, "Not at all"; because the Larceny Act begins by saying that you are guilty of an offence only if it can be proved that there was an intention to commit a felony, and there was no evidence that I had any such intention. It is a familiar thing to lawyers that an offence depends upon the ingredient of intention, which must be proved by giving evidence of acts of which the person charged has been guilty. It really is ludicrous to say, as has been suggested up and down the country, that the possession of a Bible, or the possession of the book of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) on the Great War, would constitute an offence. I will not say that is a wilful misunderstanding of the Bill, but it is a misunderstanding of it, and one for which, I am sorry to say, some persons are responsible who ought to have been able to understand the Bill better.
Let me take the ease of the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee). He told us that he has a collection of pamphlets—seditious pamphlets he said. Let me say in passing that this Bill has nothing to do with sedition, and I assume he meant pamphlets which might be used to seduce a soldier from his duty or allegiance. He prefaced a case which he wanted me to consider by saying, what all of us who know him know to be true, that he has no intention at all of using those pamphlets for any evil purpose. That case is a very easy one. The very nature of the case, as stated by the hon. Member, is that he has no intention of ever using those documents for the purpose of seducing a soldier from his duty. In that case the
hon. Member may sleep at nights without worrying about the possession of those documents. But if he were a different character, less loyal than we know him to be, in spite of his somewhat academic republican opinions, and anybody could suppose that he intended to make copies of those documents and distribute them to the troops and say, "Those are very good reasons why you should disobey your orders," then the hon. Member would be in a very different position, and a less happy one, than he is to-day.
That is the whole point about this Clause. The onus which I require every prosecution to undertake when those words "with intent to commit an offence" were put in the Clause will prevent anybody from being charged under Sub-section (1) merely on account of the possession of documents. I think every one of us has documents which contain references to the duties of soldiers or to the law of liberty, but it really is fantastic to suppose that I, or any other hon. Member, be he pacifist, Communist, revolutionary, or anybody else, stands in any danger from the possession of those documents unless and until he does something which shows plainly that he has an intention to use them for the purpose of seducing a soldier from his duty. I have no doubt that I shall be reproached, for I have tried, and even gone out of my way, to meet what I thought unreasonable fears. I have not admitted for a moment that the fears were well-founded. On the other hand, I have thought it right where possible without doing injury to the structure of the Bill, to meet ill-founded fears, and I think I have succeeded. To leave out this Clause would quite frankly take away a very valuable and important part of the Bill. I ask the House to say, for the reason that it is important, that they will support the Clause. There are no terrors for anybody who has given proof of their intentions.

Mr. McENTEE: Will the right hon. and learned Member deal with the distribution of propaganda and literature?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think it is unlikely I could allow the right hon. Gentleman to do that: the relevance of the question was the subject of my observation on the hon. Member's speech.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think that I did refer to that in my speech.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'has,' in line 12, stand part of the Bill."

The House Divided: Ayes, 271; Noes,67.

Division No. 374.]
AYES
[9.28 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Flint, Abraham John
Maitland, Adam


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Fox, Sir Gifford
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Apsley, Lord
Gibson, Charles Granville
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Assheton, Ralph
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Astbury, Lieut.-Com, Frederick Wolfe
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Glossop, C. W. H.
Milne, Charles


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Goff, Sir Park
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)
Moreing, Adrian C.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Blindell, James
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Moss, Captain H. J.


Borodale, Viscount
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Bossom, A. C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Munro, Patrick


Boulton, W. W.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Natlon, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Bower, Commander Robert Tafton
Hales, Harold K.
Nunn, William


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hartland, George A.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pearson, William G.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Haslam, Henry (Horncestle)
Peat, Charles U.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Penny, Sir George


Brown, Cot. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Perkins, Walter R. D


Brown,Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Heilgers. Captain F. F. A.
Petherick, M.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hepworth, Joseph
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)


Buchan, John
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Pike, Cecil F.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Burnett, John George
Hopkinson, Austin
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hornby, Frank
Radford, E. A.


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Horsbrugh, Florence
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswelt (Brmly)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Howiitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Carver, Major William H.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsden. Sir Eugene


Cassels, James Dale
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Reld. David D. (County Down)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Iveagh, Countess of
Reld. William Allan (Derby)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Rickards, George William


Christle, James Archibald
Jamieson, Douglas
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Clarry, Reginald George
Jennings, Roland
Robinson, John Roland


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ross, Ronald D.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Kimball, Lawrence
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Conant, R. J. E.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cook, Thomas A.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cooke, Douglas
Law, Sir Alfred
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Copeland, Ida
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Craven-Ellis, William
Levy, Thomas
Salmon. Sir Isidore


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lewis, Oswald
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Liddall, Walter S.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cross, R. H.
Lindsay. Noel Ker
Scone, Lord


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Phillip Cunliffe-
Selley, Harry R.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Liewellin, Major John J.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Denman, Hon. R D.
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Shaw. Captain William T. (Forfar)


Denville, Alfred
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Dickie, John P.
Loftus, Pierce C.
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Doran, Edward
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Drewe, Cedric
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Slater, John


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Mabane, William
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Duggan, Hubert John
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McConnell. Sir Joseph
Somervell, Sir Donald


Eady, George H.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Soper, Richard


Elmley, Viscount
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Macmillan. Maurice Harold
Southby, Commander Archibald R, J.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Magnay, Thomas
Spens, William Patrick


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Stevenson, James
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Stones, James
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Storey, Samuel
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stourton, Hon. John J.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Wise, Alfred R.


Strauss, Edward A.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Sutcliffe, Harold
Waterhouse, Captain Charles



Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Weymouth, Viscount
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Templeton, William P.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Captain Austin Hudson and Lieut.- Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Whyte, Jardine Bell



Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mainwaring. William Henry


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mailalleu, Edward Lancelot


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Sir Percy
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bernays, Robert
Hicks, Ernest George
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Paling, Wilfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Janner, Barnett
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cape, Thomas
John, William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Dagger, George
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
West, F. R.


Davies, Stephen Owen
Leonard, William
White, Henry Graham


Dabble, William
Llewellyn-Jones. Frederick
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lunn, William



Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Walter Rea and Sir M. McKenzie Wood.


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McGovern, John



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

9.37 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, to leave out "two justices of the peace," and to insert "a judge of the High Court."
I have had a note from the Attorney-General to say that he was accepting this Amendment, with one or two consequential Amendments. In these circumstances, I do not wish to delay the House, other than to say that we have always viewed with a great deal of apprehension the leaving of this matter in the hands of justices of the peace. We think that in Scotland such a practice meant practically leaving it in the hands of your political opponents. In my native city four-fifths of the justices belong to parties which are opponents of the Labour party and of ourselves. Consequently, we welcome the change very much. As this change, however, does not quite fit in with the law of Scotland, I wonder if the Solicitor-General for Scotland can give us any idea of what it is proposed to do for Scotland now that the Amendment is to be accepted for England? Although the change in some small degree modifies our bitterness against the Bill, it in no
way lessens our opposition to it, and we still think it is a very bad Bill.

Mr. McGOVERN: I beg to second the Amendment.

9.41 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We are prepared to accept this Amendment. I quite appreciate that it does not placate my hon. Friends in their opposition to the Bill as a whole. The question raised by this Amendment has been fully discussed from time to time, and the issues are familiar. I do not associate myself with the criticism that has been expressed as to the possible abuse or irresponsible use by justices of the peace of the power which was placed in their hands under the Bill before this Amendment was accepted. As the Attorney-General said on the last Amendment, we have been anxious to meet apprehensions even though we felt there was no real foundation for them. Apprehensions have been expressed as to the possible abuse of this power of search, and we have thought it right to accept this Amendment by which the matters on which the authority issuing the search warrant is
to be satisfied shall be considered by the trained mind of a judge of the High Court rather than by lay magistrates. I hope the House will feel that is sufficient for me to say in accepting this Amendment.

9.43 p.m.

Major NATHAN: May I ask for information on one point of some importance, that is, what procedure does the Solicitor-General contemplate as regards the application to the judge? Is it to be made to a judge in chambers or to a judge sitting in open court? I recognise there are manifest advantages and disadvantages in either course, and incline to the view that, on balance, the advantage rests with application to the judge in open court. Will the Solicitor-General inform the House of the procedure contemplated for carrying out the provision in its amended form?

9.44 p.m.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: May I add another request? Some sort of procedure will have to be laid down. So far as we have heard, no Amendment is being made in the Bill which will empower anybody to make regulations to lay down what that procedure is. I had rather hoped the Solicitor-General would indicate what consequential Amendments are to be made. When we hear those it may be that the points which have been raised by the hon. and gallant Member opposite and myself will prove to have been thought out, and will be disposed of at a later stage.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: I do not wish to be unkind to the Solicitor-General, but really the surrenders that the Government have made on this Bill since we have been discussing it in the House have given the Bill an entirely different character from that which it had at the beginning. Those of us who have had a very strong objection to the Bill still have that objection to it, and, in view of the many alterations which have been made by the surrenders of the Law Officers of the Crown, and of the fact that the Bill is now altogether different in character from what it was when it received a Second Reading, I think the Government ought to withdraw it altogether and bring forward a new Bill in the next Session. I would suggest too that, when they are
bringing in a Bill like this, attacking the liberties of British subjects, they ought to draw up the Bill themselves, and not bring in one drawn up by people who know nothing about draftsmanship. As they have made these changes and surrenders, they ought to take the opportunity of being honest, truthful and courageous by withdrawing the Bill altogether, and saying that next Session they will deal with the matter in quite another way.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: I should like to ask how the Government are going to get in the necessary consequential Amendments in view of the fact that they have altered the whole language of the Clause from the third person singular to the third person plural. Are arrangements going to be made for that?

9.47 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: The Solicitor-General has been asked to explain a point of procedure, and no doubt he will reply, but may I first say two or three words? There seems to be a, general impression in the Press that, because the granting of a warrant is now to be considered by a judge, the Bill has therefore lost all its obnoxious features, but the liberty which is the common right of every citizen can still be limited by the particular state of mind of any judge who has to give judgment upon the literature which is held to be of a questionable character, and as to whether the person concerned is likely to use it for questionable purposes. Although the position is much improved, it will still be possible to take away the liberty which is the right of the citizen at the present time.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. MALIALIEU: Without wishing to waste any more of the time of the House, may I express to the Solicitor-General the congratulations of my hon. Friends and myself on his having had the courage to accept this Amendment, which we have pressed all along? Without in the least saying that we approve of the Bill now, we should like to take that opportunity.

9.49 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for North-east Bethnal Green (Major Nathan), I think there is every objection to the application being made in open court. That
matter was fully debated on an Amendment as to the question of substituting a court of summary jurisdiction for two justices. The application will normally be made to the judge in chambers. With regard to the question of special rules of procedure, these, of course, can be made.

Amendment agreed to.

9.50 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, after "committed," to insert:
and that evidence of the commission thereof is to be found at any premises or place specified in the information.
Hon. Members who were on the Committee will remember that there was a discussion on this point during the Committee stage. It was suggested that, as the Bill was drafted, the premises or place which might be searched were not connected by any words with the evidence with respect to what was to be searched for. It is difficult to concieve that a warrant would be granted unless the two were connected, but my right hon. and learned Friend said he thought that the point was a reasonable one, and as a result he put down this Amendment. It provides that the information must specify the place and relate to the evidence of the offence.

9.51 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after "that," to insert:
any document specified in the information will provide.
The purpose of this Amendment to the proposed Amendment is to secure that not only shall the place be specified, but that the things searched for shall be specified. Otherwise there will be a roving commission to search every paper that may be in the person's house. The definition of the offence in Sub-section (1) is that:
any person has in his possession or under his control any document of such a nature that"—
and so on. If an application is made to a judge to search for something which is evidence of the offence, that evidence is in the nature of a document, and therefore it is fair to require that the information lodged should specify the documents for which it is desired to search. Otherwise, those who conduct the search might
turn the person's place upside down and take away anything they like. There was a case not long since in which property was removed in that way, and therefore it is right to require that a sufficiently clear specification shall be laid before the judge, so that, before he grants permission to search for papers, he may be informed as to what papers are to be searched for.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We cannot accept this Amendment, and I hope my right hon. Friend will see that it is not really necessary. The Amendment Which I have moved states clearly that the judge has to be satisfied that evidence of the commission of the offence is to be found at any premises or place specified in the information. It is clear that the only evidence that could be contemplated by these words is documentary evidence. That is what one is searching for. Therefore, the Judge of the High Court has to be satisfied that there is documentary evidence relating to the commission of an offence on certain premises. The only effect of this Amendment would be to make it necessary to specify the documents. In our view, that is going too far. It may well be that there is information that there are documents in someone's possession for the purpose of distribution, but the information may not be sufficiently exact to enable the documents to be specified in the ordinary sense of the word. This power is now being put into the hands of Judges of the High Court, who, I am sure, in the opinion of the Whole House, may be trusted to exercise it with care and discretion. Obviously, they will not issue a warrant unless they are satisfied that there is documentary evidence. To put in a provision that you have actually to specify the documents would, in our opinion, be to require a greater degree of particularity than is necessary. The information might not be in the possession of the authorities in cases where it would be perfectly proper to go to a judge and obtain a search warrant.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: This is really a very vital point in the Bill. The refusal to accept the Amendment shows that the Government want the old general warrant. They want the right to get an order and to go and search someone's house. That is a roving commission to
search to find evidence, because the Government have not the information. The Solicitor-General says that they might not know the exact documents. That is precisely the device of every kind of tyrannical Government. The whole point is that you have a Government which does not know what it wants. If there are definite documents intended to be used by the Communist party or someone to seduce the troops and they want to know where they are, that could be specified. But what the Government want is not that at all. They want really to search the houses of certain people whom they suspect. They do not know whether they have this, that or any other document. The Bill is to be used against people who, the Government think, are likely to use this kind of method. That is why a roving commission is wanted. Our point is that, if the Government seek this power, if they want evidence, they must state what the evidence is. Then under the Bill they can go and search the house and find it. That is not the act of a strong Government but of a Government that gets the wind up. If they have a reasonable suspicion that there is such evidence, they should specify in the warrant what it is they are going to search for. Instead of that, they say, "We do not know what there is to search for, but give us a warrant to see if we can find some evidence to bolster up our prejudices."

10.2 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: The Solicitor-General says it is absurd to apply to a judge and to suggest what you want with such great particularity, but our whole freedom is involved. The Attorney-General may laugh. His liberty is not involved. This is class legislation which will only be directed to the poor and obscure and not to eminent people. I do not imagine that the Attorney-General's office will ever be searched, or even the Prime Minister's. In any case it would be useless to search the Prime Minister's office for anything, because no one can understand what his speeches or articles mean. They are so obscure that no judge would convict him. The Solicitor-General says, "Here is a ease where search is to be made in people's private premises." I do not know so much about the judges as he does, but I should imagine a judge would
ask what sort of evidence was wanted. He would want a more definite description of what was wanted. He would like to know whether they are documents or other articles. We do not ask the Solicitor-General to say they are documents printed on a certain kind of paper or in a certain kind of ink. We want him to say what kind of thing it is that he is looking for. We do not want him to go to a person's house and find the notes of his speeches, or the books upon which those speeches are founded. What is the offence in connection with which premises can be searched? It is not necessarily a question of corrupting soldiers in barracks or sailors in ships.
There is a point which has not been sufficiently emphasised. Nearly everyone has suggested that the Bill is going to operate at once in the condition of the country as it is at present, when most of those who serve in the Army are in barracks and most people in the Navy are definitely in ships, and we know who they are. I am suggesting a state of things when the country is at war and every one of a military age, say between 17 and 45, is nominally a soldier.

Mr. PIKE: There is the Emergency Act.

Mr. COCKS: I do not know what is meant by the Emergency Act.

Mr. PIKE: The position in war time would be completely covered by the introduction of the Emergency Act.

Mr. COCKS: There is no Emergency Act in existence at the present time, and I want to know what is to happen. We are talking about people who are supposed to counsel some views to their own children who may be of military age.
Does the Solicitor-General suggest that the police might go and search the house and see a mother's letters to her children, for example, which might say, "My dear George—or Thomas, or whatever the name might be—I know you have to make a great decision, but before you decide to go and fight and drop bombs on other people, I will counsel you in the name of our common religion to read certain texts of scripture," and so on. That is the sort of thing which might be information suggested by the Solicitor-General. There is no end to it. The whole Bill is drafted in such vague language that it might embody all sorts
of things. It might embody even speeches by the Attorney-General upon the value of the Sabbath, and so on. Certain things should not be done on Sundays. I do not think that raids, for example, should be made on Sundays. Something to that effect ought to be put in the Bill so that there should not be raids when everybody was going to church. It is a disgraceful thing for the Attorney-General to put his name to a Bill which allows raids on a Sunday when everybody is going to church. I am surprised that he is to allow the police to raid peaceful, quiet, God-loving homes in this way.
When the Attorney-General or Solicitor General goes to a judge lie ought specifically to state the kind of information he is trying to find. I do not say that they should say document "A" or document "B," but they should say a certain kind of document. Prayer books and Bibles might be thrown into the street by policemen who did not hold such high religious

views as the Attorney-General. Why should the family Bible be taken off the table and thrown into the street or a search made for texts marked by someone or other? It is disgraceful. The Bill should contain definite instructions that the evidence required by the Attorney-General for the purposes of prosecution should be of a certain kind and not of a general kind, otherwise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) said, we are instituting the principle of general warrant which all historians say was an outrage on British liberty. I do not think that the victory for that liberty gained in the 18th century should be rejected and discarded even by a National Government.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 73; Noes, 280.

Division No. 375.]
AYES
[10.10 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mailalleu, Edward Lancelot


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mander, Geoffrey Le M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Hall. George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Sir Percy
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bernays, Robert
Hicks, Ernest George
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Paling, Wilfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Janner, Barnett
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan. George
Jenkins, Sir William
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cape, Thomas
John, William
Rea, Walter Russell


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cove, William G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sinclair. Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thnees)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Davies, Stephen Owen
Lawson, John James
Thorne, William James


Dabble, William
Leonard, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Charles
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
West, F. R.


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Logan, David Gilbert
White, Henry Graham


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wilmot, John


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall. Bodmin)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McGovern, John



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Boyce, H. Leslie
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Christle, James Archibald


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Brass, Captain Sir William
Clarry, Reginald George


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Broadbent, Colonel John
Clayton, Sir Christopher


Aysley, Lord
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Poke, Sir Robert William
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Coifox, Major William Philip


Assheton, Ralph
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Conant. R. J. E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Browne, Captain A. C.
Cook, Thomas A.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Buchan, John
Cooke, Douglas


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burghley, Lord
Copeland. Ida


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Courtauld, Major John Sewell


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Burnett, John George
Craddock. Sir Reginald Henry


Beaumont. Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Craven-Ellis William


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.


Blindell, James
Campbell. Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Crooke. J. Smedley


Borodale, Viscount
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'[...])


Bossom, A. C.
Carver, Major William H.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Boulton, W. W.
Cassels, James Dale
Cross, R. H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chlppenham)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Leckie, J. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Denville, Alfred
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ross, Ronald D.


Dickie, John P.
Lewis, Oswald
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Doran, Edward
Liddall, Walter S.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Drewe, Cedric
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lional
Liewellin, Major John J.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Duggan, Hubert John
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Duncan. James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Eastwood, John Francis
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Loftus, Pierce C.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Elmley, Viscount
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Scone, Lord


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Mabane, William
Selley, Harry R.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Flint, Abraham John
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Fox, Sir Gifford
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Gibson, Charles Granville
McKie, John Hamilton
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Slater, John


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Magnay, Thomas
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Maitland, Adam
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Goff, Sir Park
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Gower. Sir Robert
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Somervell, Sir Donald


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'ri'd, N.)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Soper, Richard


Grimston, R. V.
Mellen, Sir Richard James
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mline, Charles
Spens, William Patrick


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hales, Harold K.
Moison, A. Hugh Elsdale
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Stevenson. James


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Stones, James


Hartland, George A.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Storey, Samuel


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Strauss, Edward A.


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Morrison, William Shepherd
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Munro, Patrick
Sutcliffe, Harold


Heneage Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nation. Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'nt'n, S.)


Hepworth, Joseph
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Nunn, William
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
O'Connor, Terence James
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Hopkinson, Austin
Oman. Sir Charles William C.
Touche. Gordon Cosmo


Hornby, Frank
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Patrick, Colin M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Howard, Tom Forrest
Peake, Osbert
Wa[...]d, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Pearson, William G.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peat, Charles U.
Wardlaw-Mline, Sir John S.


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Penny, Sir George
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Petherick, M.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Peto, Geoffrey K (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Inside, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Pike, Cecil F.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Iveagh, Countess of
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wills, Wilfrid D.


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Procter. Major Henry Adam
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Jamieson, Douglas
Radford, E. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Jennings, Roland
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wise. Alfred R.


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'y'noaks)


Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)



Kimball, Lawrence
Reid, David D. (County Down)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Commander Southby.


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.



Law, Sir Alfred
Rickards, George William



Question, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: An Amendment consequential on the Amendment moved
by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr.. Buchanan) and accepted by the House is necessary here.

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, to leave out "they" and to insert "he."

Mr. REA: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. MALLALIEU: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, after the first "any," to insert:
other persons named in the warrant and any.
This is an Amendment necessitated by one which I propose to move later, but with your permission I will deal with both Amendments now. It is unnecessary For me to explain the position but when a similar proposal was considered in Committee the right hon. Gentleman accepted the principle and stated that he would try and find suitable words to carry it into effect. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has now intimated that he proposes to accept certain words of my Amendment as a result of consultation with the officials, and, therefore, I do not propose to weary the House with any further details.

Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to second the Amendment.

70.25 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The charge has been made against me that I refused to accept the principle of this Amendment in Committee, and by so doing made it possible for police officers to commit an offensive act against a woman. I have been very much reproached about this in letters addressed to me and the Prime Minister, and I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for stating that I accepted this proposal in principle and merely left the words to be settled on the Report stage.

Mr. COCKS: What is the principle?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That a woman should always be present to carry out any search that might be necessary upon another woman.

Mr. COCKS: In other words the woman must conduct the search herself.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 3, after "enter," insert "the premises or place."

In line 5, leave out "any premises or place named in the warrant."—[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, to leave out "he" and insert "the officer."

Mr. REA: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 11, leave out from "that" to "a" in line 17.

In line leave out "Provided that," and insert "(b)."—[The Attorney-General.]

10.29 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert:
Provided that if a search warrant under this Act has been executed on any premises in the absence of the occupier of the premises, it shall be the duty of the officer of police who has conducted or directed the search to notify the occupier that the search has taken place and to supply him with a list of any documents or other objects which have been removed from the premises.
The Attorney-General notified yesterday that he would be willing to accept this Amendment, and I shall not therefore take up much time in moving it. There are three observations I wish to make very briefly. First, I would like to thank the Attorney General for accepting the Amendment. We must all recognise that, though his concessions to-day and on previous days do not satisfy those of us who object to this Bill in principle, he has shown considerable elasticity of mind and magnanimity in the readiness with which he has accepted Amendments. It is quite obvious that the Attorney-General when he recognised the sort of monstrosity that was being foisted upon him by the Service Departments did his best to try to lick the creature into shape. The second thing I would like to say is that I wish he could have seen his way to have gone further and to have accepted the Amendment which appears earlier on the Paper—
In page 2, line 10, at end, insert:
Before executing a search warrant in the absence of both the occupier of the premises and the person suspected of an offence under the Act, the officer charged with the search shall, where possible, inform the occupier and the suspected person and invite them to be present at the search, and if neither of them can be found without unduly delaying the search the officer shall secure the presence at the search of a magistrate or of some person or persons who may reasonably be regarded as representing the interests of the occupier and of the suspected person.
I think we must all recognise that although the present Amendment does provide a certain safeguard for the suspected person in that he will no longer be subject to finding that his premises have been broken into and articles removed without even being officially told that this has happened, it does not really remove the objection in general to search without the presence of the suspected person or the occupier. Simply being told afterwards that documents have been removed does not provide any safeguard against the danger of planting. Those of us who have the highest possible respect for the police as a body must recognise that the police, like every other body, may have black sheep in their midst and that the possibility of fictitious planting is real. The third and last thing I would say is this. I do not know whether you, Mr. Speaker, intend to call an Amendment to the Amendment which comes later on the Paper, but I recognise that this Amendment would have been better if the words
in the absence of the occupier of the premises
had been omitted. When I made my draft my mind was fixed upon the supposed wrongs of this absentee suspected person, and, therefore, I inserted these words, but I appeal to the Attorney-General to recognise that even in cases where the suspected person has been present at the search, it may not be possible for him in the darkness possibly, or the confusion of the moment, to take a full note of the documents that are being removed though he may be allowed to see them. It would be a great matter if this list of documents could be supplied to suspected persons and occupiers even when they have been present and, therefore, I would appeal to the Attorney-General to accept my Amendment without these words.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I beg to second the Amendment.

10.34 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out "in the absence of the occupier of the premises."
This Amendment to the proposed Amendment seeks to give effect to the wish expressed by the hon. Lady in her concluding remarks. It would provide
that whether the occupier is present at the search or not, he is entitled to be provided with a list of the documents which have been removed. The mere fact that he happens to have been absent when the search took place, should not alone entitle him to have a list of the documents removed. He should equally be entitled if he has been present at the search. If a number of documents have been removed he is entitled to know what they are. The Attorney-General knows that it would be possible for the police to take barrow-loads of documents from premises. Who could say what was or what was not in that mass of documents? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has accepted the principle of the Amendment, and I will not therefore stress the point now. I hope he will agree that whether the occupier was there or not, he is entitled to have a list of what has been removed.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The combination of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady is irresistible, and I am very glad to accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Before my right hon. and learned Friend accepts this, is he satisfied that the occupier of the premises may be the person who is suspected of committing the offence? It may be someone quite different. The occupier may be the owner of a flat, and the person suspected of committing the offence may be a lodger, and why the occupier should be notified of the contents of documents belonging to the lodger passes my comprehension.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: I think the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) is worthy of consideration. Suppose the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) lets his agricultural estate at Churt to somebody else, and suppose that place is searched. The documents in connection with a recent book that has been published may quite probably come under the terms of this Bill. In that book the right hon. Gentleman has made certain charges against the high command in Flanders.

Mr. SPEAKER: That subject does not seem to come under this Amendment.

Mr. COCKS: I am using it as an illustration. That particular house at Churt contains a lot of valuable documents, and it may happen in the course of time that the present owner may let that house to somebody else, who will then become the occupier under this Amendment. Why involve the occupier, who might make some statement which might bring him under the purview of the Attorney-General, who may send his myrmidons to Churt and seize documents belonging, not to the occupier, but to the owner—very important and damaging documents, if they came into the possession of the Government. The Government might even destroy them and would probably be willing to destroy them, and I think it is very important that if any documents have beers removed, not only the occupier but the owner should be notified of what has happened. I think that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon in the case that I have mentioned should be notified of what has happened if his house has been raided and documents seized. I, therefore, support the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham in his appeal to the Attorney-General to include the word "owner" as well as "occupier."

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment to the proposed Amendment made: In line 5, at the end, add:
and where any documents have been removed from any other person to supply that person with a list of such documents." —[Dr. Addison.]

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 20, after the words last inserted, insert:
(2) No woman shall, in pursuance of a warrant issued under the last foregoing subsection, be searched except by a woman."—[Mr. Mallalieu.]

CLAUSE 3.—(Provisions as to punishment of offences.)

Miss RATHBONE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, at the end, to insert—
(2) No prosecution in England under this Act shall take place without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
This Amendment is also, I believe, going to receive the support of the
Attorney-General, so I will move it very briefly, especially as we had last night an extremely full discussion on the general principle apropos of the Amendment then under discussion to require the consent of the Attorney-General. A great many of those who are opposing the Bill as a whole expressed a strong opinion in favour of that Amendment, but it was not accepted by the House. 'We shall all recognise that this Amendment, at any rate, makes a considerable move to ensure a certain continuity of policy and fixes the responsibility for a prosecution on some one individual instead of leaving it, as it was in the original form of the Bill, merely the responsibility of any person. This Amendment will be a considerable improvement in the Bill, and I should like to thank the Attorney-General for his undertaking to accept it.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

10.42 p.m.

Major MILNER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, to leave out Subsection (2).
As I understand the position under the Bill, assuming an accused person has not asked to be tried by jury but to be tried summarily, it will be within the competence of the Director" to decline to permit that, and to have the case removed to the High Court. He will, in effect, therefore, have the right of choosing the form of trial. That should not be allowed, and the person concerned should have the right of choice.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not think there will be any objection on the part of anyone to accept an Amendment of this description, for the obvious reason that if it be deemed advisable to take proceedings under this Bill instead of under the Acts which are already in existence, it is clear that the person accused should have the right, as he has in other matters, of deciding whether he will be tried summarily or go before a higher court. I should have thought that there would not be any question about the trial, but that, on the contrary, there would be anxiety on the part of the Law Officers to give the defendant the opportunity, as lie has in other matters, to decide for himself
whether he would accept one course or the other. He will find difficulty enough in that regard, but he does not require the assistance of the Director of Public Prosecutions. He will probably prefer the assistance of his own lawyer to explain to him whether it is preferable to go before a higher court or to have his case tried in the lower court. In these circumstances, I hope the learned Attorney-General will accept the Amendment.

10.43 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This Clause is not one appearing in a Bill for the first time. There is a similar Clause in other Bills, for the same purpose, where necessary. The Clause must rmain in the Bill for this simple reason, that otherwise it would be open to any person charged under this Measure to elect to be tried summarily, although he might be a very grave offender indeed, 'and in that case would be liable only to four months' imprisonment or a fine of £20. This Clause is necessary in order to prevent any such absurd result as that. The House will realise that it is not a question of depriving a man of his right to go before a jury. That was the complaint when the Bill was introduced—that a man could be tried summarily without having the opportunity of going before a jury. This Clause is to provide that a span shall go before a fury if the Director of Public Prosecutions thinks the case is so serious that it ought to be tried before a judge and jury.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: Is there not another reason for inserting this Clause? Supposing a man is arrested in a Labour centre, where it is rather reasonable to suppose that the magistrates might have Labour sympathies. The Director of Public Prosecutions could then say, "We will not let him be tried by these people" and take him away to another place Where the majority of the magistrates are Conservatives—as they generally are throughout the country. They might seize the man in some place like Merthyr Tydfil and say, "We shall remove you from that place and take you to another jurisdiction." I am only saying this because it is the feeling of a good many of my hon. Friends that that is the real reason behind this Clause, and not the reason so speciously put forward by the Attorney-General. What is really behind the view of the Government is that they are quite willing to trust the magistrates as long as they are of their own particular colour—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—Oh, yes—but when those magistrates belong to the party of the Opposition they say, "We will not trust those people at all, we will remove the accused to another court." That is the real reason behind the Government's suggestion in this case, just as it is the real reason behind this abominable Bill.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 292; Noes, 68.

Division No. 376.]
AYES
[10.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Courtauld, Major John Sewell


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Brown,Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Craven-Ellis, William


Applin. Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Browne, Captain A. C.
Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.


Apsley, Lord
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Crooke, J. Smedley


Aske, Sir Robert William
Burghley, Lord
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Assheton, Ralph
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Burnett, John George
Crass, R. H.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Crossley, A. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Carver, Major William H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Bernays, Robert
Cayzer, Mal. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Denville, Alfred


Borodale, Viscount
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Doran, Edward


Bossom, A. C.
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton le-Spring)
Drewe, Cedric


Boulton, W. W.
Christle, James Archibald
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Clarry, Reginald George
Duckworth. George A. V.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Boyce, H. Leslie
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Duggan, Hubert John


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Conant, R. J. E.
Eastwood, John Francis


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cooke, Douglas
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Broadbent, Colonel John
Copeland, Ida
Elmley, Viscount


Emrys-Evans. P. V.
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Loftus, Pierce C.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Flint, Abraham John
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Fox, Sir Gifford
Mabane, William
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Fremantle, Sir Francis
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Fuller. Captain A. G.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Gibson, Charles Granville
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Scone, Lord


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Selley, Harry R.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt Hon. Sir John
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Glossop, C. W. H.
McKle, John Hamilton
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Goff, Sir Park
Magnay, Thomas
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Maitland, Adam
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Gower, Sir Robert
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Slater, John


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Grimston, R. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Critten, W. G. Howard
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Meller, Sir Richard James
Somervell, Sir Donald


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Hales, Harold K.
Milne, Charles
Soper. Richard


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Hammersley. Samuel S.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Hartland, George A.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Spens, William Patrick


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morgan, Robert H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Stevenson, James


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Stones, James


Heneage. Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Storey, Samuel


Hepworth, Joseph
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Herbert, Major. J. A. (Monmouth)
Munro, Patrick
Strauss, Edward A.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Nation. Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Nunn, William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hopkinson, Austin
O'Connor, Terence James
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hornby, Frank
O'Donovan. Dr. William James
Taylor. Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Howard, Tom Forrest
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Patrick, Colin M.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peake, Osbert
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Pearson, William G
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Peat, Charles U.
Todd. A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Penny, Sir George
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Perkins. Walter R. D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Petherick, M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Iveagh, Countess of
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Pike, Cecil F.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Powell. Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Jamieson, Douglas
Power, Sir John Cecil
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Jennings, Roland
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Pybus, Sir John
Wardlaw-Mline. Sir John S.


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan).
Radford, E. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M (Midlothian)
Weymouth, Viscount


Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Ramsay, T. B. W (Western Isles)
Whiteside. Borras Noel H.


Kimball, Lawrence
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ray, Sir William
Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Law, Sir Alfred
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Leckie, J. A.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lewis, Oswald
Rickards, George William
Wise, Alfred R.


Liddall, Walter S.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Ropner. Colonel L.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Lindsay. Noel Ker
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Phlilp Cunliffe-
Ross. Ronald D.



Liewellin, Major John J.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Mr. Blindell and Commander Southby.



Runge, Norah Cecil



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Cape, Thomas
Edwards, Charles


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cove, William G.
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)


Bonfield, John William
Daggar, George
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Betey, Joseph
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Gardner, Benjamin Walter


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Davies, Stephen Owen
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Buchanan, George
Dobbin, William
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)




Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rea, Walter Russell


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Lawson, John James
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Groves, Thomas E.
Logan, David Gilbert
Sinclair, Mal. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Lunn, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Harris, Sir Percy
McGovern, John
Thorne, William James


Hicks, Ernest George
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Holdsworth, Herbert
Mainwaring, William Henry
West, F. R.


Janner, Barnett
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
White, Henry Graham


Jenkins, Sir William
Milner, Major James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Wilmot, John


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Owen, Major Goronwy
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Paling, Wilfred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kirkwood, David
Parkinson, John Allen
Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.

10.58 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, at the end, to insert:
but no documents shall be destroyed before the expiration of the period within which an appeal may be lodged, and if an appeal is lodged no documents may be destroyed until after the appeal has been heard and decided.
This Amendment is designed to afford yet another protection to the suspected person. In the days of the War I had many friends who were conscientious objectors, and although I did not share their views, I became the recipient of many of their experiences. I believe it was not uncommon when searches were frequent that documents were removed, and cases were known when nothing more was heard of those documents. Sometimes documents of importance were destroyed. The object of this Amendment is to make sure that the powers given to the police to destroy documents shall not be used in such a way as to interfere with the hearing of a case when an appeal is made. I do not propose to argue the matter further, and I have some reason to hope that the Attorney-General will accept the Amendment.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I beg to second the Amendment.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I hope that the Attorney-General is going to accept this Amendment. It is of considerable importance to the persons concerned.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This is an illustration of the Amendments which I am happy' to put into the Bill. It merely embodies the practice that would be followed. I do not doubt for a moment the statement of the hon. Lady as to what happened during the War, but I should very much doubt whether under the ordinary law documents seized by the police could be destroyed except by order
of a magistrate. That, however, is an academic point; I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Short title and application to Scotland and Northern Ireland.)

11.1 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Normand): I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, to leave out "In the application of this Act to Scotland," and insert:
This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:—(a).
This Amendment is a purely drafting Amendment, in order to pave the way for other Amendments which have been rendered necessary by Amendments which have been agreed to during the Report stage.

Amendment agreed to.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, to leave out "two justices of the peace," and insert "a judge of the High Court."
I ought to explain that in Scotland the judges of the High Court are not in the habit of granting warrants; the sheriff substitute is the official who grants warrants of all kinds, and the sheriff substitute is in every case a trained lawyer. There is a possible case where, in the absence of the sheriff substitute, the honorary sheriff substitute, who might he a layman, would be acting in his place, and, in order to prevent the granting of a search warrant under the Act by a layman, I propose later on to move a manuscript Amendment which will have the effect of making it impossible for an honorary sheriff substitute to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon a sheriff by the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 13, leave out from "and" to "the," in line 15, and insert:
any application for a search warrant under the said sub-section shall be made by."— [The Lord Advocate.]

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, to leave out "or," and insert "instead."
The effect of this Amendment is to provide that only the Public Prosecutor and the Procurator Fiscal shall have the right to make an application for a search warrant, and that the inspector of police shall not have that right.

Amendment agreed to.

11.5 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, at the end, to insert:
(b) Sub-section (3) of Section two shall not apply provided that anything seized tinder that section may be retained for a period not exceeding one month, of if within that period prceedings are commenced for in offence under this Act until the conclusion of those proceedings, and subject as aforesaid and to the provisions of any enactment, including this Act, conferring powers on courts dealing with offences, any property which has come into the possession of the police under this section shall be returned to the owner, or, if the owner cannot be ascertained, shall be disposed of in such manner as the sheriff, in a summary application made to him, may direct.
(c) The powers conferred by this Act on sheriffs shall not be exercisable by an honorary sheriff substitute.
This is a pure drafting Amendment to set up machinery for the recovery of documents corresponding to the machinery provided for England. The purpose of the second paragraph is to exclude the jurisdiction of any layman who may be acting as sheriff for the time being.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am: glad the Lord Advocate has accepted the suggestion to
exclude honorary sheriffs substitute. I think it brings the law of Scotland much nearer conformity with that of England.

Amendment agreed to.

11.7 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, after "Ireland," to insert:
the provisions of this Act requiring the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the summary trial of cases shall have effect as if.
This is consequential on the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for English Universities (Miss Rathbone).

Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 20, to leave out "shall be," and to insert "were therein."

Dr. ADDISON: Can the Attorney-General give an explanation whether the Amendments with regard to furnishing lists, the preservation and return of documents and so forth are embodied in the Amendments relating to Scotland?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: They apply to Scotland. The Lord Advocate confirms me in that opinion.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be read the Third time upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 193.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Southby.]

Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.